recording_manage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the main side effects: saving a PNG file, configuring ProjectSettings, and read-only status inspection. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, whether configure_movie_writer persists or replaces existing settings, or error/edge-case behavior, which would be valuable for a mutating recording tool.

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 compact and well structured: a one-line purpose, three tight operation bullets with defaults, and a final call-shape note. It contains no filler, though the phrase 'Image Export' is slightly redundant with capture_viewport and could be tightened.

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 description covers all three ops, their parameters, defaults, and the accepted call envelope, and an output schema exists so return values do not need prose. It lacks a bit of environment context, such as MovieWriter prerequisites or what happens when no viewport is active, but an agent can likely invoke it correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the bullets document each operation's parameters with defaults and intent (target_path, viewport_path, movie_file, fps, quality). The canonical call-shape note also clarifies how params, op, and session_id relate. Some semantics, such as what an empty viewport_path means or the quality scale, are still implied rather than explicit.

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 opens with a clear domain statement ('Viewport Capture, Image Export, and MovieWriter Recording Automation') and each op names a specific verb and resource: capture_viewport saves a frame to PNG, configure_movie_writer sets MovieWriter ProjectSettings, and get_writer_status inspects active mode/output. This clearly differentiates the tool from generic viewport, export, and rendering siblings.

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?

Each operation bullet gives a clear context for use: capture a one-shot PNG, configure MovieWriter settings, or check whether MovieWriter mode is active. The description does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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