record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does so: it names hard prerequisites (Playwright installed, CLIPY_API_KEY with 'ingest' scope), discloses that it runs headless Chromium with no display so it works in sandboxes, explains the auth limits of `storageState` and why `userDataDir` must point at a dedicated profile, and warns that Clipy 'will never focus or foreground a window or tab'. It also tells the agent the result reports the RESOLVED capture source and to compare it before doing minutes of work.

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 purpose and return value are front-loaded in sentence one, which is good, but the body is a dense block that duplicates parameter explanations already present verbatim in the schema (type, viewports, storageState, durationSeconds). The CLI-only tangents on screen capture and `--cookie`/`--local-storage` are useful exclusions but are longer than needed, diluting the operational core.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, auth caveats, the recording lifecycle, and the required follow-up calls, and it does describe the return (share link, agent-context URL, resolved source). It stops short of documenting the remaining security caveat that parameter contents like `initScript`/`storageState` are never logged, which the schema carries instead.

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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters at length, and most description mentions (e.g. `type`, `viewports`, `durationSeconds`) restate that content. It adds only marginal framing beyond the schema, such as grouping `storageState`/`initScript`/`userDataDir` as the 'record behind a login' path. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Record a web app HEADLESSLY and upload it as a Clipy recording') plus the return shape (share link + agent-context URL). It explicitly separates itself from the screen/window recording siblings by stating those are CLI-only ('`clipy record --source screen` ... not available via MCP'), so an agent can tell it apart from `start_recording`/`stop_recording` 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?

It states when to use it ('capture the outcome of work you just did — e.g. after building a feature') and when the closest alternative applies (real screen/window capture is CLI-only; per-cookie injection is a CLI-only convenience covered by `storageState`). It also closes the loop with the required follow-up siblings: 'call wait_for_artifacts then get_agent_context'.

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