record_and_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the operation sequence (capture then analyze) and the return shape {capture, analysis}. However, it does not explain side effects of 'capture' (e.g., whether it overwrites a clip, affects transport, or requires an armed track), leaving a meaningful gap for a mutating operation. The return contract helps but is not complete.

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 compact (two sentences), front-loads the core function, and includes a useful example and return type. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 no annotations, 7 optional parameters, and a composite operation, the description is under-specified. It references record_audio for source and mentions a return object, but lacks detail on other parameters, prerequisites, and side effects. Even with an output schema, the tool is not sufficiently described for reliable invocation without additional lookups.

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 explain parameters. It offers an example with source, bars, and scene, but only 'source' is explicitly referenced ('see record_audio'); bars and scene are shown without definitions, and solo, device, seconds, and position_beats are entirely omitted. This leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 'Capture `source` then analyze it in one call', identifying the combined record-and-analyze behavior. It distinguishes from siblings by calling it 'the single primitive the tuning loop uses' and provides a concrete usage example, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage context: it is the tuning loop's primitive, used after changing a parameter to read the result. It references record_audio for source semantics, implying alternatives, but does not explicitly state when to use analyze_audio alone or other exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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