xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature (submission, waiting, polling hint) and the return of job_id and next action. However, it does not mention required permissions, idempotency, or side effects (e.g., whether repeated submissions create duplicate tasks).

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 a single, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and includes essential post-submission behavior. Could be slightly improved by separating input and output details, but still effective.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools for retrieval, the description provides sufficient context for a submission tool: it explains the input, the waiting period, and what to do next. It does not need to detail return values as the output schema handles that.

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 100% for the only parameter note_id, and the schema already provides extensive detail (24-char hex, must be exact). The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the action: submit a video note speech-to-text task using note_id. It distinguishes from sibling tool xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_url by specifying the input is note_id, not URL. The description also explains the behavior after submission (wait up to 210s, return job_id and next action).

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 gives clear context: it is for submitting a new transcription task, and after waiting briefly, the agent should use the returned job_id and next query action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for checking status) or mention alternatives like xhs_get_video_speech_text_job.

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