add_chapter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: inserting a mark like '=== CHAPTER: <label> ===' at the live clock, and notes that chapters 'ride the transcript so a reader (or the summary) can see the boundaries'. This is adequate for a simple tool, though it could mention that it requires an active recording session or confirm it is non-destructive.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a technical action, a usage guideline, a concrete example, and a note about output. Four sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the action, the effect (transcript mark), the use case, and the lifecycle (during recording). No missing information.

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 coverage is 100% with a clearly defined 'label' parameter (string, 1-200 chars). The description adds value by showing typical usage patterns ('BEFORE — bug present', 'AFTER — fix applied') and relating the parameter to the transcript marking. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Drop a CHAPTER boundary into the active recording session'. It specifies the action (drop a mark), the resource (active recording session), and provides a concrete example ('PR review') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_recording or abort_recording.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use it to split a recording into named sections. Ideal for before/after recordings'. It provides a step-by-step example with tool calls and suggests it works in conjunction with other tools like stop_recording. No explicit exclusions, but the context makes the usage clear.

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