Stage Take Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: sampling rate (30 Hz), capture channels, output path scenes/<scene>/takes/<id>/, the page command take_start, id construction, the VR-only sampling constraint, both reply shapes, and the emitted events including voice_error when no mic is present.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and capture scope, then follows with path, page command, id, return shape, and events. Density is high and every clause carries information, though the single run-on paragraph would benefit from softer breaks.

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 an output schema exists, the description still adds the non-obvious pieces: sampling only in VR, the 30 Hz rate, the already-running response, and the voice_error event. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: scene is shown as the folder segment in scenes/<scene>/takes/<id>/, and name is explained as part of the generated id. It does not state that name defaults to an empty string, which is the only reason this is not a 5.

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 (start recording a take), names exactly what is captured (head and both hands at 25 joints, WebXR body, mic) and where it lands. An agent can tell it apart from stage_take_stop, stage_takes, or stage_test_take without opening another 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 operating context: frames are only sampled while the page is in VR, and a running take returns {id, already: true}. That effectively signals the when-not (do not start twice), but it never names an alternative tool or says explicitly when to prefer this over stage_take_view or stage_test_take.

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