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

The description discloses that the transcript is 'stored on the media and returned', adding a side-effect beyond the annotations. It also warns the output is 'raw speech-to-text' and should be treated as source material, which is useful for how the agent handles the result.

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, each carrying a distinct function: purpose, usage condition, and output/behavior. No redundant phrasing, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations for idempotence and destructiveness, the description covers the key behavioral facts: when to invoke, what gets stored, and what the returned data is like. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that the transcript is returned.

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 fully documents both parameters (media_id, redo) with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Transcribe what is said in a video') and immediately clarifies it is a written-record operation, not just video handling. This differentiates it from sibling media tools like view_media or update_media, so an agent can identify when this tool is relevant.

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?

Explicitly conditions use: 'ask for it only when the traveller wants what was said kept' and says it is 'Not done automatically'. It also contrasts transcription with 'keeping the video', giving a clear when-not-to-use signal without needing a sibling name.

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