transport_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses that a new track is created as part of the operation, but omits other critical behavioral traits: whether it stops existing playback first, what happens if recording is already active, error conditions (no input device), and whether the operation is destructive.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is perfectly front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler words or redundant explanations.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the domain (transport control), the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved by clarifying interaction with current transport state (e.g., 'Recording continues until transport_stop is called'), but adequately covers the core function.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds semantic context by clarifying the side effect (creation of a new track), which compensates for the empty schema by explaining what resource the tool acts upon.

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 provides a specific verb ('Start recording') and clear scope ('on a new track'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling transport controls like transport_play and transport_pause, and from track management tools like track_add_mono.

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 (when the user wants to record audio), but provides no explicit workflow guidance, prerequisites (e.g., audio input requirements), or relationship to transport_stop. It does not clarify if recording stops automatically or continues indefinitely.

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