Save Recording As Waveform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — the resulting waveform is '可重复播放' (replayable) — but says nothing about persistence, whether an existing waveform with the same name is overwritten, permissions, or failure behavior for an un-sent/incomplete recording.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and result are stated first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's mutation semantics.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a write operation in a family of nine waveform siblings, the description omits prerequisites, persistence/overwrite behavior, and sibling routing — leaving real gaps.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema and the description must compensate. The description only implies that one argument identifies a recording and the other names the waveform; it gives no guidance on whether recording_name is an ID or a display name, or on naming constraints for waveform_name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: persist a recorded action as a waveform. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_sine_waveform/create_intent_waveform (which originate a waveform rather than convert a recording), but it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the qualifier '成功发送的录制动作' (a successfully sent recording), which hints at a prerequisite from start/stop_action_recording. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus save_waveform or the create_*_waveform siblings, and no exclusions or ordering guidance.

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