neuron_start_demo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the core behavior—replaying steps, applying overlays, and capturing video. However, it omits important operational details such as whether this is asynchronous, how the recording is stopped, what output is produced, and whether any prior recording state is affected.

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 that clearly conveys the action, resource, and distinctive behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema 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?

The definition is adequate for an agent to understand the high-level purpose and invoke the tool with workflowId and config overrides. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around return value, stopping behavior, and video output handling. It is not fully complete for a tool with this much implied side-effect complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents workflowId and the config object, including the format enum. Nested config properties like voiceover and showCursor are not individually described, but the description is not expected to compensate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a demo video recording of a workflow.' It also describes the distinctive behavior—replaying steps with cinematic overlays and capturing to video—which separates it from sibling tools like neuron_start_recording and neuron_start_replay.

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 when to use the tool (when a cinematic demo video of a workflow is needed), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. There is no routing guidance relative to sibling tools such as neuron_start_recording or neuron_start_replay.

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