create_record_chapter

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation (adding a marker) and a version/format constraint. However, it does not mention error behavior when recording isn't active or when format is unsupported, nor side effects beyond the marker.

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 two sentences plus a one-line argument explanation. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the action, parameter semantics, and a key compatibility constraint. It is largely complete, though it doesn't address error handling or return values.

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 schema only provides type and default, but the description explains 'chapter_name' is an optional name for the marker. This adds meaning by clarifying optionality and purpose, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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 states 'Add a chapter marker to the file currently being recorded' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling recording tools by specifying the marker action and adds a format/version constraint.

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 clear context: use it on the file currently being recorded, with a specific limitation ('Only supported on Hybrid MP4 output as of OBS 30.2.0'). It doesn't name alternatives, but no direct alternative exists for chapter markers.

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