transcribe_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load: it discloses the backend must be user-supplied, the two setup paths, and that a missing backend yields status="no_backend" with install guidance rather than a silent failure. It also states the return structure matches get_transcript with data_source="asr" and that ASR output inherits the same verification caveats — leaving only minor gaps like latency/cost of a 3 GB model download beyond what's implied.

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?

Front-loaded with a bold one-line summary, then headed sections with bullets — good structure for a complex tool. The narrative about page previously being a no-op is somewhat verbose, though it does justify trusting the parameter now.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still links its output to get_transcript compatibly. Coverage of failure modes, backend prerequisites, login preconditions, and per-part caching is sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly and interpret failures.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does an excellent job on 'page' (multi-P selection, per-part audio caching so P2 doesn't silently reuse P1) but never explains 'bvid' at all. Half the parameters are documented, half are not.

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 the operation precisely (download audio track → local ASR transcription) and positions it explicitly as the third path relative to get_transcript. An agent can distinguish this tool from get_transcript and grab_frames without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: get_transcript returns transcript: null, or the subtitle is ai_subtitle with unacceptable error rates. Also adds a necessary precondition (must be logged in, otherwise the subtitle list is falsely empty) which prevents a whole class of misdiagnosis.

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