Create Record Chapter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutating operation, and destructiveHint=false, indicating no destructive side effects. The description adds that it modifies the file being recorded, which is consistent with the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as failure modes (e.g., if recording is inactive), permission requirements, or whether the chapter marker is inserted at the current playback position. Since annotations cover the mutability baseline, the description provides minimal extra context, scoring a 3.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It delivers the essential information in a concise, front-loaded manner. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description adequately conveys the action and context. It mentions the recording context implicitly, which is a key prerequisite. However, it could explicitly state the requirement that recording must be active, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its basic function.

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%: the only parameter 'chapterName' is fully described in the schema with 'Name of the new chapter'. The tool description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter, but the schema already conveys its meaning. According to the guideline, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Adds'), the resource ('new chapter marker'), and the context ('to the file currently being recorded'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like obs-split-record-file, as adding a chapter marker is a different operation. The verb+resource structure is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage during recording ('currently being recorded') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from related tools like obs-split-record-file. The context is clear enough for basic use but lacks explicit alternatives or caveats.

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