Stop recording

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conditional behavior (only stops when active) and the post-action verification step, which is more than just repeating the tool name. However, it doesn't specify what happens if no recording is active (e.g., no-op or error), which is a minor 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 a single sentence that fronts the main verb 'Stop' and packs all essential details—'local', 'only when active', and 'verify recording state'—without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, condition, and post-verification. It hints at state checking but doesn't specify return values or error behavior when no recording is active. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap, but the tool is simple and the description is sufficient for most use cases.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, as the schema is empty). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 params; the description does not need to explain parameter details because there are none to explain.

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 the action ('Stop local recording') and the resource ('recording'), with a specific condition ('only when active') and a follow-up action ('then verify recording state'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'local', avoiding confusion with live streaming tools like studio_stop_live.

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 phrase 'only when active' implies a precondition for using the tool, effectively telling the agent when it is appropriate to call it. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the word 'local' contrasts with sibling tools like studio_stop_live, providing context. No exclusions are stated, but the condition is clear enough.

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