browser_record_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start' and provides no information about side effects, prerequisites, persistence, return values, or what happens if a recording is already in progress. The phrase 'in-memory' hints at non-persistence but is insufficiently elaborated.

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?

The description is a single, concise five-word sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and structurally efficient, though the brevity harms other dimensions.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters), a short description could suffice, but this one lacks essential context about the workflow draft lifecycle, how to stop/stall it, or what 'typed' means. With no output schema and ambiguous terms, an agent cannot confidently infer behavior. Sibling tools like 'browser_record_stop' exist but are not referenced, leaving the workflow incomplete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description does not need to document parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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?

The description uses a verb ('Start') and a resource ('in-memory typed workflow draft'), which is not a tautology. However, 'typed workflow draft' is ambiguous and provides little context for what the tool actually accomplishes in a browser automation context. It trivially differentiates from sibling 'record_stop' and 'record_status' by being the start action, but this is not explicit.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'browser_record_stop' or 'browser_record_status', nor does it specify any prerequisites or scenarios. Usage context is entirely implied by the name.

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