flowpass_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary: no live browser recording is started. That is genuinely useful context not in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what a 'draft pack' is, whether it persists, or what happens to prior drafts.

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 core operation and immediately followed by the key constraint. No wasted words. Could be slightly tighter, but the structure is efficient and the most important caveat is prominent.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't clarify the output (no output schema exists, so some return-value context would help), the meaning of 'draft', or how this relates to sibling pack-registration tools. An agent can invoke it, but may not know the correct usage path.

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 100%, so both target_url and session_events are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the input domain (rrweb or structured session events) which loosely maps to session_events, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: converts rrweb or structured session events into a draft FlowPass pack. The purpose is clear and concrete. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like flowpass_register_pack or flowpass_run, and the exact relationship (does 'record' mean transform-only, or capture?) requires inference. Solid but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

The description hints at a constraint ('does not start a live browser recording by itself'), which implies you should use something else for live capture, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use guidance is given. The agent must guess when this is the right tool versus flowpass_run or flowpass_register_pack.

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