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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the required transcription:write scope, the credit reservation model (1 credit per started minute), and two specific failure codes (INSUFFICIENT_CREDITS, AGENT_KEY_BUDGET_EXCEEDED). It does not warn about the interaction between idempotentHint=false and credit reservation (a retry may double-charge), which is the one meaningful behavioral gap.

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 action, followed by requirements and failure modes in a logical order; every sentence carries information. Slight verbosity in the multi-line error-code enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the cost/auth/error disclosure is strong for a mutation tool. However, three optional parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, which is a real gap for an agent trying to configure diarization or provider selection.

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 carries the full burden, yet it explains none of the four parameters. providers, diarization_enabled, and max_duration_seconds are opaque — an agent cannot tell what provider names are valid or what max_duration_seconds constrains (upload length vs. transcription cutoff) from the description or 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 ('Start') plus the resource ('automatic transcription workflow') and even names the internal pipeline stages (transcription -> merge -> quality). This clearly separates it from siblings like transcription_get_workflow or transcription_list_workflows, which are read operations on existing workflows.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite ('Upload audio first via REST POST /api/v1/transcription/audio-files'), which is the key precondition for calling this tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g., estimate_cost or get_credit_balance before starting), leaving that inference to the agent, but the usage context is clear.

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