visual_loop.record_capture

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

Annotations provide little (all hints false), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds 'Risk: standard; maturity: L1' and 'export additionally requires a committed snapshot,' which hints at an export-related behavior, but it fails to disclose what the tool actually does, side effects, or file-writing implications. The behavioral profile remains unclear.

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 short, but it front-loads metadata (risk, maturity) rather than the purpose. Each sentence about risk/maturity is boilerplate and doesn't help an agent select or invoke the tool, while the essential 'what it does' is missing. It is concise but structurally ineffective.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a nested artifact object, an output schema, and a large sibling list, this description is severely under-specified. It doesn't state what the tool does, when to use it, or how to fill parameters, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 only 43%, and the description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain artifact, loopId, transactionId, or _expectedSceneRevision. With 7 parameters and nested objects, the description fails entirely to compensate for the schema 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?

The description only restates the tool name and provides metadata like risk and maturity. It never explicitly states that the tool captures a visual loop frame or what 'record_capture' actually does. This is close to a tautology, offering no clear action or resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like blender_visual_loop_cancel or blender_visual_loop_record_verdict. The mention of requirements (approved output root, committed snapshot for export) hints at conditions but does not explain the usage context or selection criteria.

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