Set Record Directory

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe to call multiple times without side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations. It adds context that it affects 'record output' directory, which is useful. The description doesn't mention any side effects like changing the directory affecting future recordings, but given idempotency and non-destructive hints, this is acceptable.

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, concise sentence that conveys the purpose effectively. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Sets' and the resource. No unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple setter tool.

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?

Given that this is a simple setter with one parameter, the description covers the essential purpose. The annotations provide idempotency and non-destructive hints. The sibling tools provide context for what other related operations exist. The description doesn't need to explain return values since there's no output schema. It's complete for its complexity.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the parameter 'recordDirectory' with description 'Output directory'. The description says 'Sets the current directory that the record output writes files to' and essentially reiterates the same meaning. The parameter description is minimal but clear. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it sets the current directory for record output files. It specifies the resource (record output) and the action (sets directory). It's distinguishable from siblings like obs-get-record-directory (which gets the directory) and obs-set-output-settings (which sets output settings in general).

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: it sets the directory for recording output. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives like obs-get-record-directory or obs-set-output-settings. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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