stop_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether stop is reversible, what happens to the recording file, whether it requires the recording to be active, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation/write tool.

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 action and followed by an optional detail. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 recording-stop tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on stop, whether a recording must be in progress, or any return value implications. The agent lacks critical context to invoke it safely.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'recorder' parameter and its default. The description adds the default value redundantly but no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the work.

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+resource: 'Stop recording.' This clearly distinguishes it from start_record and other siblings. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 implies when to use it (to stop an ongoing recording), which is reasonably clear from the name and description. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives like start_record, leaving some inference to the agent.

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