record_resume_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Host Resume') and does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether the take becomes active again, whether any media changes, whether it requires permissions), nor does it describe what happens after resuming. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates session state.

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 extremely brief (one short phrase), which could be efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It does not earn its place because it leaves out critical context; this is a case of under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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?

Even though an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks essential usage context: when it is appropriate to call, what state the take must be in, and what the expected outcome is. For a simple tool with one parameter, the description could be richer and still remain concise, but it currently leaves too much to inference.

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%, and the single parameter `project_path` is not explained anywhere in the description. The description does not add any meaning about what `project_path` represents, its format, or its role in the resume operation. The schema alone is insufficient, and the description fails to compensate.

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 the tool is for resuming a paused take, which conveys the core action. However, the phrasing 'Host Resume' is awkward and ambiguous, and it doesn't explicitly say 'resume recording' or name the sibling it contrasts with (e.g., record_start, record_pause). It is clear enough on surface but lacks precision.

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?

The description implies usage when a take is paused but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_start_tool or record_pause_tool. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active recording session) or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer context on its own.

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