Abortrecording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive default ('deletePartial defaults to true and removes the incomplete file') and that nothing is shared, but is silent on permissions, whether the aborted recording remains listed/recoverable, and what happens when deletePartial is false.

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 then the destructive-default detail. Minor waste in the awkward mid-sentence line break, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the destructive behavior is disclosed. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description leaves the recordingId parameter and post-abort state undefined, which is a real invocation risk.

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 explains deletePartial beyond the schema (default true, removes the incomplete file), but recordingId is completely unaddressed despite being nullable with a null default — an agent cannot tell whether to pass it or what null means.

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 a recording') and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'without sharing it,' which separates it from finishRecording/confirmUpload. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent still has to infer why it would pick this over cleanupRecording, which likely also discards files.

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 an explicit triggering condition: 'Use this when the task is cancelled or the capture is the wrong display.' No when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., finishRecording for a good capture) is provided, so the routing is clear but not fully closed.

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