migrate_segments

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely non-obvious traits: it consumes ElevenLabs credits and is deprecated upstream, both of which materially affect whether an agent should call it.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the two clauses run together without punctuation ('...Spends ElevenLabs credits. Deprecated upstream.'), making the credit cost read as part of the action name. It is terse without being well-structured.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost and deprecation and annotations cover safety. However, it omits what happens to the moved segments and leaves two parameters undocumented, so it is only minimally complete.

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 dubbing_id documented), and the description says nothing about speaker_id or segment_ids. With two undocumented required parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource with scope: moving segments between speakers, which is distinct from siblings like dubbing_target_transcript_segment_update. The phrase is clear enough that an agent can identify the operation, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for segment edits.

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 only usage signal is 'Deprecated upstream,' which warns against use but names no replacement tool and gives no condition for when this is still appropriate. There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many other segment/dubbing tools.

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