Audio Ingest Transcription

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it names the engine (Whisper), discloses the three write targets in the graph, and explicitly documents best-effort failure semantics ('ingested' is None when no engine is reachable). What it omits is whether re-ingesting the same audio creates duplicate nodes and what permissions the graph writes require — meaningful gaps for a multi-node mutation, but the disclosed behavior is well above average.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured detail on outputs and failure mode. Every sentence carries information; only the trailing 'CONCEPT:AU-KG.ingest.enterprise-source-extractor' token is noise an agent cannot act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be explained, and the description covers inputs, engine, write targets, and degraded-mode behavior. For a tool that mutates a knowledge graph, the remaining unanswered question — idempotency/duplicate handling on re-run — is the one notable omission.

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%, so task, model, language, and audio_file are all self-documenting and the baseline is 3. The description adds a little framing by stating Whisper runs specifically on ``audio_file``, confirming that this is the source media path (audio or video) rather than a derived artifact, but it adds nothing on task/model/language tradeoffs.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (transcribe + ingest) and a specific target (the knowledge graph), then enumerates the exact artifacts produced: an :AssetOccurrence blob, a :Document, and :TranscriptSegment nodes. 'Natively ingest it into the knowledge graph' implicitly separates it from plain transcription siblings like transcribe_audio, so an agent can tell what makes this one different without opening any schema.

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 conveys that this is a transcription-plus-ingestion operation, which implies its use case, but it never says 'use this when you need the result stored, otherwise use transcribe_audio/audio_transcriber_transcribe.' No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no guidance on repeat invocations or when a lighter sibling is preferable.

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