dubbing_transcript_segment_update

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

The description discloses one non-obvious behavioral fact not present in the annotations: the call spends ElevenLabs credits. That is genuine added value beyond the structured readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints. However, it is vague (no amount, no condition, no note on whether the dubbed audio/target transcript is regenerated) and the rest of the mutation behavior is left unexplained.

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?

It is short and wastes few words, but the phrasing is a malformed run-on ('...Segment Spends ElevenLabs credits.') that blurs the action with the side effect. It is terse rather than well front-loaded, and the grammar hurts readability.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with 6 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It never states which fields are editable, what an update implies for the project/segment, whether credits are consumed unconditionally, or how it relates to the sibling segment tools.

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 only 33%: only project_id and segment_id are documented in the schema, while text, start_s, end_s, and speaker_id are undocumented. The description adds no information about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 6-parameter editing tool.

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+resource ('Update Dubbing Transcript Segment'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from very close siblings such as dubbing_transcript_segments_update (plural), dubbing_target_transcript_segment_update, dubbing_transcript_segment_add, or dubbing_transcript_segment_delete, so an agent must infer which segment tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given the dense cluster of near-identical segment tools (add/delete/update, singular/plural, target vs. non-target), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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