record_stop_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the take is preserved or discarded, whether the stop is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what state the session ends in — critical for a recording-control operation.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — a five-word fragment that omits all actionable context. Front-loading is moot when there is essentially nothing to front-load.

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 explained. But for a recording-state mutation with no annotations and an ambiguous cluster of sibling stop/pause/land tools, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.

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 optional parameter (project_path) is undocumented in both schema and description. Because the parameter is optional with a null default, the impact is limited, but the description makes no attempt to explain which project the stop applies to.

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 phrase names an action (Stop) and a target (the current take), so an agent can infer it halts recording for the active take. However, 'Host Stop' is unusual jargon and the description never distinguishes this from record_pause_tool, record_land_tool, or stop_session_tool, leaving the exact scope ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative despite several closely related siblings (record_pause_tool, record_land_tool, stop_session_tool). The agent is left to guess when this is the right tool versus pausing or landing the take.

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