transcribe_audio

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 discloses the prerequisite and the three modes, but does not mention what happens if transcription already exists, whether it overwrites, or any side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence and an Args section. No extraneous information. While structured, it could benefit from bullet points for the args, but it is effective and front-loaded.

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?

With three parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational modes and requirements. It does not explain return values, but the output schema exists to handle that. Complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: 'clip_name' as a specific clip name, 'folder_path' as a slash-separated path, and 'use_speaker_detection' with a default fallback to project setting. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 ('Transcribe audio'), the resource ('clip or folder'), and the specific method ('DaVinci Resolve's AI transcription'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'clear_transcription' by focusing on transcription generation.

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 specifies three operating modes (single clip, folder path, or current folder if neither given) and a prerequisite ('Requires Resolve Studio with transcription support'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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