transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that transcription is 'local' and that filler words are removed, but says nothing about whether actions write files, what gets overwritten, or the sha256 refusal guard documented only in the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded before the action enumeration. No filler, though the action list partially duplicates the enum rather than adding information.

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?

A four-action tool with a nested, generic args object and no output schema needs per-action intent, sequencing, and write-behavior notes; the description provides none of these. An agent cannot tell what each action consumes or returns from the description alone.

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 100% and the args object is self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's action list merely mirrors the enum and adds no per-action argument meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Transcribe source media locally and edit the timeline') and contrasts the editing paradigm against the sibling 'edit' tool by timecode. The four action names are enumerated, but the overall umbrella purpose of a multi-action tool is only loosely bounded.

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 action list implies usage but never states when to pick transcribe_media vs edit_by_transcript vs transcript_pack, nor the ordering between them. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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