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, and it explicitly discloses the non-obvious failure mode: if no input device is configured, the dispatch succeeds but recording does not actually engage. This adds real behavioral transparency beyond the basic action.

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 sentences with each one earning its place: the action, the prerequisite/failure behavior, and the stopping counterpart. The core purpose is front-loaded with no redundant wording.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential operational details: what it does, the required condition, the silent failure mode, and how to stop recording. It leaves minor ambiguity around pre-existing recording state, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is fully documented, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter context is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and object—'Start recording on a new track'—which clearly identifies transport_record as the tool for initiating recording. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transport_play, transport_stop, and transport_play_region, which handle playback or stopping.

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?

It names the complementary stop tool, transport_stop, and states a prerequisite: a working audio input device. It also warns that the command silently does nothing if no device is configured, which helps the agent decide not to rely on it in that scenario, though it does not explicitly contrast with playback tools.

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