set_record_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It accurately describes the toggle behavior and the meaning of the 'enabled' argument. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., does arming recording change transport behavior?), prerequisites (e.g., must a track be armed?), or what the return value indicates. It's minimally transparent but not rich.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a clear action, followed by a minimal parameter specification. No fluff, no redundant prose. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one boolean parameter), has an output schema (though not inspected), and sits among many sibling tools. The description covers the core function but doesn't explain edge cases, return values, or when to choose this over 'set_session_record'. For a simple toggle, this is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter 'enabled' as a boolean. The description adds meaning by defining True as 'arm recording' and False as 'disarm'. Since schema coverage is 0% (no titles/descriptions), this direct explanation is helpful, though it doesn't go beyond a simple restatement of the parameter's meaning.

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: 'Enable or disable arrangement recording.' This is a specific verb phrase that distinguishes it from related tools like 'set_session_record' and 'trigger_record', though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The resource (arrangement recording) and polarity (enabled boolean) are both evident.

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 through the 'enabled' parameter and the tool name, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_session_record' or 'create_arrangement_midi_clip'. The context is narrow enough that a user can infer it, but no explicit guidance is offered.

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