Finishrecording

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 richly: it discloses file lifecycle ('stays until FastFileLink reports the download finished, then the share stops and the file is deleted'), the google_drive branch that deliberately does not call Google and returns uploadStatus pending, and what to do on failure. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 core action and defaults, then organized paragraph-by-paragraph around delivery/cleanup combinations. Slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries behavioral information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 enumerated, yet the description still tells the agent what comes back (url, localPath, uploadStatus pending) and how to use it in the final answer. Combined with the delivery/cleanup matrix and the failure instruction, nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for delivery (ffl/local/google_drive) and cleanup (after_download/manual/after_upload) with concrete outcome semantics for each combination. The third parameter, recordingId, is left undescribed, which keeps it from 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 ('Stop the recording and hand it to a transfer strategy'), which clearly distinguishes it from startRecording, abortRecording, and cleanupRecording. It could have been explicit about how it differs from abortRecording (does it preserve the file?), but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: defaults (delivery ffl, cleanup after_download), the local/cleanup-manual path, and the google_drive/after_upload path with an explicit follow-up instruction to call confirmUpload. It does not state when to prefer abortRecording or cleanupRecording instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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