stemlab_record_rudiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the call returns a retained background job that must be polled, and permission flags for inference/download may be conditionally required. It still omits what a 'retained' job means for storage, whether repeated calls spawn duplicate jobs (non-idempotent), and what the write permission acknowledgment does if omitted.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with the primary action first and operational follow-ups after; nothing is padded or repeated. The 'Base effect flags' phrasing is terse jargon but still readable.

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?

The output schema and the job-polling instruction cover the return path, and the effect flags cover permissions. But for a tool with a large, undocumented parameter surface and non-idempotent job creation, the description leaves too much unstated—what 'bounded' means, how start/end constrain the recording, and what source/output actually reference.

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 description says nothing about the ~25 nested arguments (mode, start/end, fft_size, frequency_bands, length_policy, bpm, etc.) beyond the vague words 'bounded' and 'Fourier bands'. With schema description coverage at 50% and the entire arguments sub-object carrying no per-field descriptions, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 and resource: 'Record bounded source-derived motion or Fourier bands using the canonical StemLab implementation.' The 'canonical' qualifier hints at a distinction from legacy/other StemLab entry points, but it never names stemlab_rudiments or stemlab_generate_batch, so sibling separation is left implicit.

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?

Gives useful follow-up routing ('poll danceflow_job_status') and points to danceflow_component for conditional effects, but offers no guidance on when to choose this over stemlab_rudiments or stemlab_generate_batch, nor any prerequisite or exclusion conditions.

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