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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive default ('deletePartial defaults to true and removes the incomplete file') and that nothing is shared, but is silent on permissions, whether the aborted recording remains listed/recoverable, and what happens when deletePartial is false.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the destructive-default detail. Minor waste in the awkward mid-sentence line break, but nothing is padded.

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, and the destructive behavior is disclosed. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description leaves the recordingId parameter and post-abort state undefined, which is a real invocation risk.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains deletePartial beyond the schema (default true, removes the incomplete file), but recordingId is completely unaddressed despite being nullable with a null default — an agent cannot tell whether to pass it or what null means.

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 ('Stop a recording') and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'without sharing it,' which separates it from finishRecording/confirmUpload. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent still has to infer why it would pick this over cleanupRecording, which likely also discards files.

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 an explicit triggering condition: 'Use this when the task is cancelled or the capture is the wrong display.' No when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., finishRecording for a good capture) is provided, so the routing is clear but not fully closed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious side effects: termination of an active share and file removal even for undownloaded recipients. However, it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and any failure behavior for an unambiguously destructive delete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its main side effect; nothing is redundant. The line breaks read slightly awkwardly but no sentence is wasted.

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, and the description covers the action, the required id, and the key sharing side effect. For an unannotated destructive tool it would ideally also flag irreversibility and permission requirements, but the essentials are present.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description has to compensate. 'Pass the recordingId' tells the agent which identifier is required but adds no format, source, or provenance guidance, which is thin for the only input.

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 and resource ('Delete a local recording') plus an accompanying side effect ('stop any share still serving it'), which an agent can understand immediately. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling abortRecording, so it falls short of a 5.

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 never says when to use this versus abortRecording or finishRecording, which are the plausible alternatives for ending a recording session. Usage is only implied by the word 'Delete' and the post-hoc 'cleanup' framing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a side effect (cleanup 'after_upload' deletes the local recording) and the external dependency on the Drive tool, but says nothing about idempotency, what happens if url is wrong, or permission/auth requirements.

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 core action and immediately followed by the trigger condition. The trailing cleanup sentence is relevant but sits slightly apart from the call instructions.

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 no explanation. For a simple two-parameter state-recording tool, the sequencing, dependency, and url meaning are the essentials, and they are covered; only recordingId semantics and failure behavior are unaddressed.

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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema, so the description must compensate. It explains url ('that Drive file link') but leaves recordingId entirely undefined beyond its name, covering only half the inputs.

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 concrete verb and object ('Store the link from the connected Google Drive tool') and anchors it to a specific recording workflow, so an agent can distinguish it from startRecording/abortRecording/recordingStatus. It never explicitly says it finalizes/confirms an upload for a given recordingId, leaving the exact resource slightly implicit.

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 an explicit precondition and ordering: 'Call this after finishRecording(delivery="google_drive") once the Drive tool has uploaded localPath.' The alternative (calling before the Drive upload exists) is ruled out by that phrasing, so no inference is required.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that the local file and share persist until FastFileLink reports a completed download, at which point the share stops and files are deleted — i.e. what gets destroyed and when. It also reveals a non-obvious behavioral quirk (google_drive delivery does NOT call Google, returning localPath plus uploadStatus pending instead), which an agent could not infer from any structured field. It adds prompt-level safety guidance against putting passwords, verification codes or key contents in summaryMarkdown.

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 front-loaded with purpose and organized into short paragraphs per delivery mode, so it is scannable despite its length. A few lines are redundant: the ZIP paragraph restates the after_download cleanup behavior already explained two paragraphs earlier, and the closing instruction to put the returned url in the final answer is agent-facing output policy rather than tool documentation. Most sentences still earn their place because the branching logic is genuinely complex.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions and irreversible cleanup, the description is substantially complete: it covers defaults, file lifecycle, delivery routing, packaging, and failure messaging, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The notable gaps are that recordingId semantics are absent and that cleanup manual is described as leaving the file in place without pointing at the cleanupRecording sibling that would later remove it. The relationship to abortRecording is likewise never stated.

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 supply the meaning, and it does for three of five parameters: it enumerates delivery values (ffl, local, google_drive), cleanup values (after_download, after_upload, manual), and package values (video, zip) with their behavioral consequences. summaryMarkdown gets partial treatment (used to build summary.md in the ZIP, must not contain secrets). recordingId — the one parameter that identifies the target and is nullable-with-null-default — is never explained, leaving the agent to guess whether null means the current active recording.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource pair — stop the recording and hand it to a transfer strategy — which is concrete enough to distinguish it from abortRecording (discard) and cleanupRecording (post-hoc deletion). It further clarifies scope by naming confirmUpload as a required follow-up for the google_drive path. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with abortRecording, which is the sibling an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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?

It routes the agent across every meaningful branch: default ffl/after_download, local+manual for a returned file URI, google_drive+after_upload with an explicit two-step confirmUpload follow-up, and package=zip as the recommended Skill workflow versus package=video as the legacy default. It also states a hard constraint (ZIP packaging supports ffl delivery only) and tells the agent what to report on failure. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with named alternatives and exclusions.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default-target behavior and that state is 'idle' when nothing is recording, and 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it omits error behavior for an unknown/expired recordingId and any permission or rate-limit context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the parameter rule, then the idle-state edge case. No filler.

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 enumerated, yet the description names them anyway. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only failure modes for an invalid recordingId are 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and recordingId is documented only as a nullable string, so the description's rule 'omit recordingId to ask about the active recording' supplies the parameter's actual semantics. It adds real meaning the schema cannot convey, though it does not describe accepted ID formats.

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?

Specific verb (Return) plus the exact resource and its fields (recording state, duration, display, file size). It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling mutators startRecording/finishRecording/abortRecording/cleanupRecording/confirmUpload.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to omit recordingId (to query the active recording), which is the main usage decision for this tool. It does not state exclusions or errors, but the sibling names make the alternative operations obvious.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotency (a second recorder is never started), the auto-stop at maxDurationSeconds with the file retained, filename derivation/sanitization/collision suffixing, and the requirement that outputDir pre-exist and be writable. It stops short of stating error behavior when outputDir is invalid, whether user consent or permissions are needed, and roughly how large the output can get.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative call-to-action, then organized into short paragraphs per concern (duration, title, outputDir, already-active case), which makes it easy to scan. It runs longer than necessary for four optional parameters — the process-tree/other-session sentences and some filename detail could be tightened — but nearly every sentence carries usable information.

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 four-parameter, zero-required side-effecting tool with no annotations, the description covers timing, defaults, termination, naming, path requirements, and idempotency. Because an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is appropriate and nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the fps and maxDurationSeconds defaults, explains what happens at the duration limit, and fully specifies title (naming pattern with example, unsafe-character conversion, -2/-3 dedup) and outputDir (must exist, must be writable, Drive-readable path suggestion, plus being ignored when a recording is already active). Only fps lacks range or tuning guidance, which is a small residual 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start recording the agent computer display') plus the exact moment to do it ('before browser or computer-use actions'). The scope clause about the display being selected from this agent process tree further distinguishes it from sibling tools like recordingStatus and finishRecording.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('Call this before the first browser or computer action') and implicitly when not to bother, since an already-active or pending recording is returned rather than starting a second one. It also routes downstream behavior by naming finishRecording as the consumer of the retained file, and gives a conditional case for choosing outputDir when a Google Drive upload tool is involved.

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