Lands saved full-quality recordings and live comments onto the podcast timeline for a project, so producers can align captured audio and audience feedback during editing.
Land saved full-quality recordings and live comments on the timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says what gets placed on the timeline. It omits whether recording must be stopped first, whether the action is reversible, what side effects occur, and what happens to already-landed material.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized. It is efficient even if under-specified.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation-style tool with no annotations the description is too thin: prerequisites, the project_path default, and the distinction from sibling record/comment tools are all missing.
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 single parameter project_path has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent learns nothing about its meaning or the effect of leaving it at the null default. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific resource ('saved full-quality recordings and live comments') and a destination ('the timeline'), but the verb 'Land' is jargon that leaves the exact operation ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as record_stop_tool, record_discard_take_tool, or add_comment_tool, so an agent cannot tell precisely which operation this is.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many record_* and comment_* siblings. No prerequisites (e.g. recording stopped, take saved) and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.