review_recording

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It does well disclosing client-dependent behavior and that the user's choices "run as a pipeline call" (i.e. a side effect is triggered). However, it never states whether the call blocks until the human finishes, what happens on cancel/close, or whether an export file is created without further confirmation — the most important behavioral facts about a human-in-the-loop tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the two execution modes. The parenthetical about the pipeline call is compact and earns its place. Slight density loss from cramming player interactions and fallback guidance into one block.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover return behavior and side effects. It covers the return shape in the fallback case ("returns the video's details") but is silent on what the interactive mode returns to the agent and on the lifecycle of the exported trimmed/redacted copy.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (video path and stopped-session id) are already documented in the schema. The description says nothing about the path-vs-sessionId selection, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data — baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Open a recording for a person to review") and immediately clarifies the two modes it operates in, including the inline player with trim/redaction editing. An agent can distinguish this from list_sessions, get_media_info, or clip without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: in MCP Apps clients you get the interactive player; elsewhere it only returns video details and you should use contact_sheet or sample_frames instead. That names both the condition and the alternatives. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_media_info or clip for non-interactive inspection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.