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

Strong on cost and side effects: 2 credits/min, +4 credits/min for burn, cue timing preserved, word-level highlight dropped, and burn requires media+preset — all beyond what the annotations declare. However the annotations' title is "Transcribe" while the tool and description are about translation, which creates a mild signal conflict the description never resolves, and failure/partial-failure behavior is not described.

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?

Cost is front-loaded, then inputs, then outputs, then the burn variant — a sensible order with no filler. The burn clause is compressed to near-telegraphic style ('needs media plus a preset'), which is efficient but slightly terse for a param with extra requirements.

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 13-param paid mutation with no output schema, it covers price, inputs, preserved/removed output traits, and return formats (SRT, VTT, JSON). Remaining gaps are secondary params and behavior on invalid input or partial failure, which are not blocking for a correct call.

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 coverage is only 38% across 13 params, so the description must compensate, and it only meaningfully explains transcriptionJobId/subtitles, burn, and indirectly mediaUrl/preset. Parameters like sourceLanguage, maxCredits, fileId, faceAvoid, highlightWords, and styleOverrides are left entirely to the schema.

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 (translate captions) plus the exact input modes (transcriptionJobId or subtitles) and the engine (Workers AI m2m100). An agent can distinguish this from transcribe, dub, and burn_captions without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing conditions: pick transcriptionJobId or subtitles as the source, and burn:true requires media plus a preset. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling burn_captions or dub, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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