previewapk_record_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the server-side transfer, the index fields (rec_id, size, duration), and persistence after session end. Gaps remain on failure modes (no recording running), whether the call blocks until transfer completes, and any permission requirements.

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 sentences, action first, side effect second, routing hint attached to the effect it relates to. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-param, no-output-schema stop tool the description covers the effect, the resulting artifact, and the next step. Only the undocumented 'device' parameter and error behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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 single 'device' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it — an agent cannot tell whether it targets the current device implicitly or must be supplied. With only one optional param this is a small but real gap, since behavior likely differs when a device is passed.

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 ('Stop the running recording') that cleanly separates it from the sibling previewapk_stop, and adds the concrete effect (MP4 pulled to server, indexed). An agent can identify this as the recording-termination tool without opening any schema.

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?

Names the follow-up tool explicitly ('download it with previewapk_record_download') and clarifies that stopping is non-destructive to availability ('Recordings stay downloadable after the session ends'), which removes the main hesitation about calling it. It does not state what happens if no recording is active, nor any prerequisite such as a prior previewapk_record_start.

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