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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about explicit confirmation, retained source media, and a durable operation receipt, but it does not explain what destructive effect the retry may have or what happens if source media is unavailable.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the confirmation condition and return behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. However, for a destructive, idempotent retry operation with three required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description should clarify idempotency and destructive implications more fully.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implies transcriptionId and confirm through “one failed tenant-owned transcription” and “explicit confirmation,” but does not mention idempotencyKey at all, leaving a required and structurally constrained parameter unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: requeue one failed tenant-owned transcription from retained source media. This is precise enough to distinguish it from transcript-reading, creation, and URL-transcription siblings.

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 clearly establishes the context: only failed tenant-owned transcriptions with retained source media, and only after explicit confirmation. It does not explicitly name when to choose alternatives such as transcribe_url or get_job_status, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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