record

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: default save location in the session scratch directory that is deleted when the session stops, a 100 MB clip cap, what the response contains (path, duration, up to 8 frames composed into one image), that the clip itself cannot be played back, and that sound reports what was heard. These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries information, but the prose is dense and run-on, with mid-sentence shifts (the 'RETURNED AS ONE IMAGE' aside, the compressed 'until_line's, by its path' fragments) that slow parsing. Information-dense but not well structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return value (path, duration, frames image, matched line) and covers the scratch-directory lifecycle and size cap. Only peripheral details like required session state or failure behavior are absent.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining cross-parameter relationships the schema only hints at — e.g. 'seconds' acts as a maximum when 'until_line' is set, 'tail' extends past the matched line, and 'path' must be a new .mp4 relative to the allow file's directory.

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 up front ('Record a clip of the screen, or of one window, and save it as an .mp4') and explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling by noting screenshot's burst is cheaper for brief motion. An agent can tell this apart from screenshot/sound without opening the 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?

Gives clear context plus an explicit alternative ('For a few moments of motion, screenshot's burst is cheaper') and notes the sound tool equivalence. It lacks a general when-not-to-record rule or prerequisites (e.g. session must be running), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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