Start recording a live call

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the legal consent requirement, the mandatory confirm:true gate, and the return shape (recording_id/url). It does not describe what happens to any existing recording or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the endpoint, then precondition, then lifecycle routing. Every sentence earns its place; the endpoint path is marginally redundant but harmless.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully states what is returned (recording_id/url). It covers consent, confirmation, and follow-up tools for a mutation tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile. The main residual gap is the undocumented file_format/record_channel_type parameters.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate, but it only repeats the confirm:true requirement already documented in the schema and ignores file_format, record_channel_type, and call_uuid. It adds almost nothing about parameter meaning or format beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start recording a LIVE call') and even gives the exact endpoint. The 'LIVE call' qualifier implicitly separates it from start_conference_recording, and the agent can identify the target resource without opening the schema.

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?

Names the two lifecycle siblings explicitly ('Stop with stop_recording; find the file afterwards with get_call_recording') and states the consent/confirmation precondition. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this versus start_conference_recording, but the 'LIVE call' framing plus the confirm gate gives clear selection context.

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