import_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does add one genuinely valuable behavioral constraint — timecodes must be in source time, not timeline time. It omits the important mutation semantics: whether an existing transcript is overwritten, whether the call fails on malformed subtitles, and permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the format and time-base constraints packed inline. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral source, and it covers format plus time base but not the outcome (what is returned, replace vs. append, error behavior). Adequate to attempt a call, insufficient to predict its effects.

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 coverage is 0% and all three titles are bare camel/snake labels, but the description compensates for the riskiest parameter by fixing `subtitle_path` to .srt/.vtt files in source time. `project` and `asset_id` receive no added meaning beyond their names (e.g., ID format or how the target asset is resolved).

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?

Specific verb ("Attach") plus resource ("transcript") and accepted file types, which separates it from the sibling `transcribe` (generation) and `get_transcript` (retrieval). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Existing ... file" implies the pre-condition that the caller already has a subtitle file, which implicitly routes generation requests to `transcribe`. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of whether an asset may already have a transcript that would be replaced, and no prerequisites.

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