record_section

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: real-time recording (time cost equals wall clock), a 5-minute cap, automatic cleanup of the temporary track (default true), and that it runs transport and adds an arrangement clip. These details add significant context beyond the annotation alone.

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 four sentences long, effectively front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, process, time constraints, and return value. No redundancy 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 the tool has 4 parameters, an output schema (not shown), and complex real-time behavior, the description covers all aspects: what it does, how it works (temporary track, routing, arming), time and cleanup constraints, and the return value (WAV path). It is self-contained and leaves no major gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all four parameters: 'source' (Resampling or track name), 'cleanup' (keep track if false), and 'start_beat'/'end_beat' as the recording range. It provides meaningful context like 'Resampling = the master output' that is absent from the schema.

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: 'Bounce a section of the arrangement to an audio file WITHOUT the Export dialog'. It specifies the resource (arrangement section) and outcome (audio file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_audio_clip' or 'trigger_session_record' by emphasizing internal signal capture and real-time recording.

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 implies usage for hearing an internal signal and avoiding the Export dialog, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_audio_clip' or 'capture_midi'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided; guidance is only implied through the process description.

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