recording_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses key traits: it is asynchronous (returns immediately), records a silent artifact, always includes the pointer cursor, and depends on timeline streams being published for narration anchors. It does not cover permission requirements, error behavior, or where artifacts are stored.

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 four tightly written sentences, front-loading the action and format options, then the workflow, then two key behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes information without repetition.

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 five-parameter recording tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary workflow, format context, async behavior, and the timeline dependency. It leaves some operational details like permissions or artifact destination unaddressed, but is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by tying timeline_sources to narration anchors and requiring the driving tool server to publish a stream, and by clarifying region selection within the active output.

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 states a specific verb and resource: start recording an active output or region into a silent artifact, with formats enumerated. It distinguishes the action from siblings by naming recording_stop and recording_status as the workflow continuation.

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?

It clearly explains that the call returns immediately and that the agent must call recording_stop, then poll recording_status until completion or failure. This gives explicit next steps and alternatives, but does not state when not to use the tool or how it differs from other recording_* siblings such as recording_scenes.

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