start_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what 'user interactions' are captured, whether the call is idempotent, what happens if recording is already active, or any permission/session-state requirement.

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 lean sentence with the action front-loaded and no padding. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail.

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 session-state mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits lifecycle context (pairing with stop_recording/export_recording_as_test) and any behavioral or error expectations an agent needs.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter and its name (sessionId) plus the phrase 'the given session' make its meaning self-evident. The description adds no format detail (UUID) beyond the schema, so it neither compensates nor misleads.

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?

States a specific verb (start) and resource (recording of user interactions) scoped to a session, which is enough to separate it from siblings like stop_recording and export_recording_as_test. It does not name those siblings, but the action 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. It never mentions that recording must later be stopped (stop_recording) or exported (export_recording_as_test), nor whether the session must already exist, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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