neuron_stop_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action and result, but does not disclose what happens if no recording is active, whether an existing workflow with the same name is overwritten, or what the return value or side effects are. For a state-changing tool, this is a meaningful 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?

The description is one short sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and required parameter clearly, and every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main operation, but it omits prerequisites, edge-case behavior, and output expectations. Given no annotations and no output schema, an agent does not know whether this call is safe without an active recording or whether it overwrites existing workflows.

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 100% and the single 'name' parameter is already described as 'Name for the saved workflow'. The description adds 'with a name' but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names a clear verb ('stop recording') and resource ('workflow') and specifies the save action, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like neuron_start_recording and neuron_stop_replay. It does not explicitly contrast with every related tool, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is used when an active recording should be ended and persisted under a given name. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the usage guidance is present only by inference rather than explicit routing.

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