set_recording_privacy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing the required scope, the no-invite/no-email side-effect boundary, and an explicit human-confirmation rule for the dangerous transition. It does not say what happens to already-shared links or existing collaborators when the mode changes, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the mode definitions that an agent needs before acting, then the side-effect disclaimer, the confirmation caution, and the scope requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information and none repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety hints and no output schema, the description supplies the mode semantics, permission requirement, and the one destructive transition to guard. Only the post-change effect on existing share state is unaddressed, a minor omission.

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 coverage is only 50% – the enum values for 'mode' carry no per-value description in the schema – and the description compensates by defining all three modes precisely ('public' = anyone with the link, 'restricted' = people/domains already on its list, 'private' = owner only). The 'id' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so the description is not needed there.

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+resource ('Change who can open a recording's share link') and immediately enumerates the three resulting states, so the agent knows exactly what dimension of the recording is mutated. It is cleanly distinguishable from siblings like update_recording or edit_recording because it is scoped to the share link's access mode.

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 a concrete usage rule ('Confirm with the user before making a private recording public') and a prerequisite ('Needs recordings:write'), plus an explicit non-behavior ('It never invites or emails anyone') that rules out an invite-based alternative workflow. It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating when-not to use it, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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