record_website_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns a public video URL with 24h TTL and supports async polling. It implicitly indicates that sync mode returns the video URL directly, implying it waits for completion. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but it covers essential outcome and async flow.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first states purpose and output; the second explains async usage. It is front-loaded and 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?

While the tool has many parameters, the schema covers their specifics. The description mentions the async workflow and TTL, and references check_video_status. It does not mention limitations like recording duration or errors, nor guidance on when to use this vs take_screenshot, but the essential usage is covered with the schema.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful guidance for the async parameter: 'Pass async=true to receive a requestId; poll check_video_status until status=completed or status=error,' which explains the workflow and connection to the polling tool. It also clarifies that the URL must be public, aiding interpretation of the url parameter.

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: 'Record a scrolling webm/mp4/gif capture of any public URL.' It distinguishes from the sibling take_screenshot by emphasizing 'scrolling' and 'video capture' with format options. It also mentions the output URL with TTL, providing a specific verb+resource.

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 gives explicit guidance for async mode: 'Pass async=true to receive a requestId; poll check_video_status until status=completed or status=error.' It references the sibling check_video_status and explains the workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with take_screenshot or state when to prefer this tool over a screenshot, so it lacks a full when/when-not directive.

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