clikta_start_recording

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses significant behaviors: creates a recording on the workspace, launches a real browser, and navigates to the URL. The warning about suspicious URLs is a nice touch. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, if repeated calls are safe, or the asynchronous nature of browser launch/loading, which would be valuable context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence contributes: what it does, when to call it, and a practical URL preference. No filler or redundancy.

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 workflow-initiating tool with no output schema, the description covers the core process but omits what the result object looks like (e.g., a recording ID). The mention of a warning hints at the result, but the full return value is unclear. This is a minor gap given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value for toolUrl by explaining the navigation behavior and the staging preference, plus the warning condition. Other parameters (name, toolId, objective) are adequately covered by the schema, so the extra toolUrl context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Start a new Clikta recording.' It goes on to explain the key actions (creates the recording, launches a real browser, navigates to toolUrl). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clikta_click or clikta_finish_recording, which are obviously later steps in the workflow.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this before any other clikta_* action tool,' providing unambiguous ordering guidance. It also advises preferring a staging/sandbox toolUrl over production, which is practical usage guidance beyond mere sequencing.

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