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

Beyond the sparse annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: the tool writes into RAG, honors RAG opt-out by returning status='skipped_optout' with no transcript stored, and requires a Supabase session JWT. It does not describe success response shape, failure modes, latency, or whether transcription is synchronous, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the action and outcome, then immediately clarifies the boundary with sibling tools. The opt-in and auth notes are brief, and every sentence contributes useful routing or behavioral context.

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 5-parameter ingest tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, boundaries, opt-in behavior, and auth sufficiently to call it correctly. It is slightly incomplete because it names only the opt-out status and does not explain success/failure returns or whether the transcript is immediately searchable.

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 100%, so the schema already carries all parameter semantics, including direction, MIME type, thread/message linkage, and base64 audio. The description adds conceptual context but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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: submitting a finished PTT 'over' for transcription into the caller's RAG index. It explicitly distinguishes this from related voice-message tools by saying persistence is handled by mDM_send_voice / mIRC_send_voice and that this is the transcription bridge only.

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 gives clear usage context and names the alternatives: use this for transcription/indexing of a finished PTT segment, while message persistence belongs to mDM_send_voice / mIRC_send_voice. It also states the per-user RAG opt-in behavior, which affects whether calling it produces a stored transcript.

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