record_discard_take_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful behavior: deletion is refused while the upload manifest is in flight. However, it does not state whether deletion is irreversible, what side effects occur, or what state remains after the operation, which is significant for a destructive 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 a single sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler, so it is highly concise. However, the parenthetical is syntactically ambiguous about whether the take or the deletion is refused, which slightly undermines structural clarity.

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?

This is a destructive recording-lifecycle tool with no annotations and two undocumented required parameters, yet the description is minimal. It lacks context about what a terminal take is, when the refusal applies, and how this tool relates to nearby recording and deletion tools. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but selection and correct invocation are still under-supported.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain project_path or take_index or how they map to the 'terminal take'. The word 'take' hints that take_index identifies the take, and project_path is self-explanatory from its name, but no real semantic guidance is added.

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 concrete action ('Delete') and a specific object ('a terminal take'), so an agent can tell this is a deletion tool for takes. It is clearly distinct from the record_* lifecycle siblings by action and resource, but the phrase 'terminal take' is not defined and no sibling is explicitly named, so it does not fully differentiate itself.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_land_tool, record_stop_tool, or track_remove_tool. The parenthetical mentions a refusal condition but does not explain the intended workflow context or provide exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the terse description.

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