Auto-caption a video

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

The description adds workflow detail beyond the annotations: it chains jobs, retains the SRT alongside the video, and allows correction and re-burning. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the generated artifacts and the option to fix Whisper errors.

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. It uses three short paragraphs to convey the core purpose, workflow, and a key parameter option. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested option groups and many parameters), the description adequately explains the high-level workflow and the SRT correction cycle. It relies on the detailed schema for parameter specifics, which is reasonable, though it could briefly mention asynchronous/orchestration behavior.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for many parameters, and the main description adds value for translate_to_english and the SRT path behavior. However, several parameters (style, encode, options, max_lines) are left to the schema or nested definitions, and the description does not fully compensate for the 56% 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?

The opening sentence 'Transcribe a video and burn the captions in, as one job' clearly states the specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning the chaining of transcription, SRT generation, and caption burning, and it references burn_captions for a related but different use case.

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 explains when to use this tool: when you want to avoid orchestrating three separate jobs. It also provides an alternative path by mentioning burn_captions for re-burning after correcting the SRT, and calls out translate_to_english as a specific option. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you only need transcription).

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