recording_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that after the call the chain is closed, append is blocked, and proof export remains possible. It also describes how optional parameters are embedded as a closing block. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is irreversible or mention any side effects.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose, consequences, and parameter roles. It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., an active recording) or potential errors, but overall it is fairly complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'rating' (1-5) and 'notes' are embedded as the closing block for summary assessment. However, it does not describe the 'recording_id' parameter beyond its role implied by context. Meaning is added for two of three parameters.

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's purpose: 'Finalize a recording and persist the chain.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings by noting that after this call no further 'recording_append' is possible, and the chain remains exportable via 'recording_proof'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to close a recording after appending) and mentions a related tool ('recording_proof') for export. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives for finalization.

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