set_record_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the intended effect. It does not disclose whether the directory must already exist, whether it is created, whether the change is persistent, or what happens on invalid paths. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a setter.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence plus an Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains 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 simple one-parameter setter, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits any behavioral cautions (e.g., directory creation, validation), which would make it fully complete given the absence of annotations. Still, it is reasonably complete for its minimal scope.

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 0% description coverage (only a title 'Path'). The description compensates by stating 'Absolute directory path' in the Args, adding clarity on the expected format. Since there is only one parameter, this fully addresses its meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('output directory recordings are written to'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_record_directory' which retrieves the directory. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 (setting the record directory) but provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusions. It does not mention the alternative 'get_record_directory' for reading the current value, so guidance is only implicit.

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