transcribe_upload_start

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 return values and the approximate chunk size (~60KB), which adds modest transparency. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, whether a job is created, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences containing essential information with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It fails to explain the chunked upload protocol, how to use the returned upload_id, or the meaning of the parameters beyond their names. For a multi-step process, this is insufficient.

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 50% (only filename and expected_chunks have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for these parameters. For language and include_timestamps, there is no description in either schema or tool description, leaving agents guessing.

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 tool initiates a chunked audio upload for large payloads and names the key return values (upload_id and max_chunk_bytes). It is distinct from sibling tools like transcribe_upload_append and transcribe_upload_finalize.

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 implies use for large payloads that require chunking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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