Soft-delete a Scriptivox transcription record. Idempotent. Returns 409 CONFLICT if the job is still in-flight — cancel first via transcribe_cancel. Requires a configured API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transcription_id | Yes | The transcription ID to delete (UUID). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable detail: it specifies 'soft-delete' (implying recoverability), the 409 CONFLICT error when in-flight, and the need to cancel first. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent predict behavior. Could be a 5, but it doesn't describe success return or error payloads, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
Two sentences, with the core action front-loaded, followed by key behaviors (idempotent, conflict case, API key). No wasted words; every clause earns its place.
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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: soft-delete, idempotency, conflict handling, and authentication. It does not state the expected success response (e.g., 200, 204), but this is a minor gap given the tool is a simple delete. Overall it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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 single parameter 'transcription_id' is already fully documented as 'The transcription ID to delete (UUID).' The description adds no further parameter-specific guidance (e.g., format, validation). Baseline 3 is correct because the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 ('soft-delete') and resource ('Scriptivox transcription record'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like transcribe_cancel and transcribe_status. It also communicates the idempotent nature, which further clarifies its purpose.
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?
The description explicitly tells the agent when not to use it: if the job is in-flight, cancel first via transcribe_cancel. It also mentions the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite for using the tool. No ambiguity remains about the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains several near-neighbor groups: deprecated aliases duplicate live tools, and docs/billing/financial tools have fuzzy boundaries. Individual descriptions are detailed and resolve most collisions, but matching the right tool among 39 still requires care.
Most tools follow a sensible verb_object style, but the transcribe_* group is inconsistent: transcribe_url/transcribe_upload are verb_object, while transcribe_status/transcribe_cancel/transcribe_delete are really status/cancel/delete operations renamed with a transcribe prefix. The deprecated transcription_status/transcription_url aliases add another naming convention, so the pattern is not reliable across the set.
39 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and creates an overwhelmingly broad surface spanning account management, billing, docs, API jobs, library organization, meeting bots, and automations. Two deprecated duplicates inflate the count further. This would be more coherent split into separate servers or at least pruned of deprecated aliases.
Core API transcription lifecycle is covered, and the library/meeting-bot flows have search, tagging, moving, and audio retrieval. However, there is no user-library deletion/rename, no OAuth-side full-transcript access, local upload is non-functional over the hosted endpoint, and webhook management is documented but not exposed as tools. These gaps force agents to work around missing operations.
