ecamm_recording

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the action occurs mid-stream/recording and that "new_file" produces a separate recording file, but it doesn't explain what happens to the existing file on split or what a dry-run response contains beyond the schema note.

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 primary behavior and followed by the prerequisite. Nothing is wasted and the key constraint (confirm: true) is placed prominently.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials are present, but a destructiveHint=true tool should say more about the effect of splitting on the current recording file. The confirmation/dry-run mechanism is the schema's job, but consequence disclosure is left thin.

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 50%: the action enum has no schema description, but the description supplies meaning for both values (pause/resume vs. split into a new file) and restates the confirm requirement. That compensates well for the undocumented enum and adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 pairs specific verbs (pause/resume, split) with a specific resource (the current recording) and covers both enum modes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It doesn't explicitly contrast with ecamm_start_stop or ecamm_toggle, which keeps it just 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?

It gives a situational condition ("while streaming/recording") and a hard prerequisite (confirm: true), which is real guidance. However, it never says when to choose pause/resume versus new_file, or which sibling to use instead to start, stop, or toggle recording, so the choice between alternatives is left to inference.

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