transcribe_to_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it warns the tool is experimental, requires separate setup, runs in the background, returns a job_id immediately, has fallible language auto-detection, and may require clearing existing labels first. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what an input schema would convey.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by setup, background behavior, troubleshooting, and parameters. Every section earns its place for an experimental tool with no annotation support.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains return behavior (job_id), how to monitor progress, how to recover from language misdetection, how to clear old labels, and what each parameter accepts. Nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains each parameter: model_size with accepted Whisper sizes, language with ISO code example and null meaning auto-detect, and task with 'transcribe' vs 'translate' semantics. This adds practical meaning absent from the bare 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Transcribe audio and add Audacity labels at each segment timestamp.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like transcribe_audio and transcribe_to_file by its label-output behavior and note about 'Runs in BACKGROUND.'

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 explicit follow-up guidance ('Use check_transcription_status to monitor progress') and explains when to pass language explicitly or set task='translate'. It also advises retrying with this same tool rather than switching to a different transcription tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with transcribe_to_file or transcribe_selection for choosing between output destinations.

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