recording_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is asynchronous, that the immediate return is a stopping/processing state rather than the artifact, and that polling recording_status is required. It omits permission requirements and error/duplicate-call behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the follow-up procedure; every clause earns its place with no redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains that the return is an intermediate state and where the real output comes from (recording_status), which is the essential missing piece. Minor gaps remain around failure modes, but for a zero-parameter action this is well covered.

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 the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 (stop) and resource (the active recording) plus the consequential next step (finalizing the artifact), which cleanly separates it from the sibling recording_start. An agent can tell immediately what this does without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to stop the active recording, and then poll recording_status for the final artifact path and metadata. It does not state the when-not case (e.g., behavior when no recording is active, or whether calling it twice is safe), so it stops short of full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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