Upload a robot recording

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful side effects: the recordings pipeline runs (recon → odometry-consistency score → QC gate), the scene persists with source='robot_recording', and a QC report is stored under derived/demo/recordings/. It also explains the async nature by returning {job_id, scan_id} and directing the caller to workspace_job_wait.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the first states the action and constraint, the second describes the pipeline and persisted result, and the third gives the response shape and recommended next step. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the input format, what happens during the operation, what persists, where the QC report lives, what is returned, and how to follow up. No critical operational information 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?

The input schema already documents the path parameter well at 100% coverage. The tool description adds extra constraint information beyond the schema: the file must be a DimOS memory2 .db and at most 2 GB, which helps the agent validate input before calling.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Upload a robot recording (DimOS memory2 .db, ≤2 GB) into the account.' It also gives the exact file format and size limit, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like workspace_upload_video and workspace_upload_splat.

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 intended use case is clear: upload a robot recording in DimOS memory2 .db format and then follow up with workspace_job_wait. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of workspace_upload_video/splat,' but the file-type and pipeline context make the appropriate use obvious.

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