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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context with the 'Enterprise only' restriction and bulk execution capability, but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or response characteristics.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The first line is near-tautological but is immediately clarified by the more specific 'Add a new source segment to the transcript' and the bulk-support note.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified: required parameter semantics, how bulk parameters interact with singular required fields, and expected behavior after adding a segment.

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 must compensate. It only explains project_ids and speaker_ids for bulk execution; required parameters like text, start_s, end_s, speaker_id, and project_id remain semantically unexplained.

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 action: 'Add a new source segment to the transcript.' The phrase 'source segment' distinguishes this from sibling target-transcript and segment-update/delete tools, making the purpose clear.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Enterprise only' and bulk support via project_ids/speaker_ids. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the source-vs-target distinction gives adequate situational guidance.

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