recording_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses signing, hash-linking, tamper evidence, and event_type validation. It lacks details on error conditions, prerequisites (active recording), or idempotency, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and supporting paragraphs. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for constraints).

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 presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. However, the description omits prerequisites (active recording must exist), error handling, and size limits, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 0%, but description only adds meaning for event_type (allowed values). Content and recording_id receive no additional semantic explanation beyond their names, leaving significant gaps.

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 action ('Append'), the resource ('signed, hash-linked block'), and the context ('to an active recording'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recording_start, recording_end, and recording_list.

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 explains when to use the tool (to append a block to an active recording) and specifies valid event_type values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though context from sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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