fl_set_recording

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, but the description adds behavioral nuance: 'FL's toggle is dispatched at most once' reveals that the tool may not act if the state is already as requested, and it's not a simple toggle. This goes beyond the annotations, adding useful context about how the operation is executed.

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, tightly written sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral detail without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word 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 write operation with concurrency guards, the description covers the main behavioral trait (absolute set) and the schema covers parameters and output. It does not explicitly mention failure modes (e.g., stale session fingerprint), but these are described in the schema. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the concurrency guard and expected state. The description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 clearly states the tool sets the recording state and uses 'absolutely' to indicate a deterministic set rather than a toggle. The resource is 'recording', which is distinct from sibling tools like fl_set_playing or fl_stop, so purpose is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so not a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over a simple toggle or any exclusions. The description implies an absolute set but doesn't state conditions for use.

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