record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden, and it discloses only that recording starts. It does not say the session continues until 'stop' is called, what happens if no track is armed, whether this toggles or latches, or what error/return behavior occurs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

For a state-changing transport action with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: required preconditions (armed track), interaction with 'stop', and effect on project state. An agent cannot safely invoke it without that.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly introduces no parameter discussion.

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 ('Start recording') and a clear target environment (REAPER), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'stop', 'pause', 'play', or 'arm_track', which an agent needs when picking among transport controls.

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?

No mention of when to use this versus 'play'/'pause'/'stop', nor any prerequisite such as an armed track, an input assigned via 'set_track_input', or an active project. The agent must infer all triggering conditions.

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