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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=false; the description goes far beyond them by disclosing that the call is PROPOSED rather than executed, returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token, and only writes after confirm_action. It also discloses the billing side-effect of 'auto' mode and that existing captures are not re-processed, which directly tempers the destructiveHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact quoted-parameter list, then the critical confirmation block last where it is most visible. It is dense and semicolon-chained rather than bulleted, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs; only the long video_frames parenthetical is heavier than required.

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?

With ten all-optional parameters, no output schema, and confirmation gating, the definition covers almost everything needed to call it correctly, including downstream behavior. The one real gap is patch semantics: it never says whether omitted parameters are left unchanged or reset to defaults, which matters for a 0-required-parameter mutation.

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 0% and the description compensates for all ten parameters: it gives the mode enum semantics with cost implications, an example for auto_media, allowed default_language values, and the material difference between asr_model choices (whisper-1 keeps timestamps, the gpt-4o variants do not). The video_frames parenthetical explains what the extra vision call actually produces, which the bare boolean never could.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Change the caller's intake recognition settings," which unambiguously separates it from read-side siblings like intake_get_settings. Scope is clear (caller-owned intake settings), though the description never names the read counterpart or any sibling explicitly.

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 states the key decision point between the modes (auto spends the caller's key on every matching capture) and warns that changing settings never re-processes stored data, which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong lever. The mandatory propose-then-confirm workflow is spelled out step by step. It lacks an explicit "to inspect current values use intake_get_settings" routing sentence.

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