clear_transcription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is clearing transcription (destructive) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversibility) or required permissions. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 brief yet complete. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses a clean 'Args' section to detail parameters. Every sentence contributes meaning without waste.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-required tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential usage cases and parameter behavior. It could mention return values, but output schema likely handles that. Slightly incomplete regarding any confirmation or status of the operation.

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 fully compensates by defining each parameter's role: 'clip_name' as name in current folder, 'folder_path' as slash-separated path, and the fallback if neither is given. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 ('Clear audio transcription') and the resource ('for a clip or folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'transcribe_audio' (create) and 'clear_audio_classification' (different operation).

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 the three modes of operation (clip, folder, or current folder) and names the parameters. It provides clear context on when each parameter applies but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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