transcode_from_url

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

The description discloses key behaviors: immediate job_id return, wallet debiting on completion, polling frequency (every 5 seconds), and expected durations for large files. Annotations are minimal but not contradicted; the description adds significant value beyond them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supported sources, limits, and post-invocation steps. It is slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (nested options, polling required), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, limitations, and follow-up steps thoroughly. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, making this complete.

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 100%, but the description adds practical context: how to pass share links without conversion, trimming syntax with examples, and explanations of h264_profile options. This meaningfully supplements 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 tool's purpose: to offload video/audio transcoding using a public URL, avoiding an upload step. It distinguishes from siblings like transcode_video (which likely requires upload) by specifying 'no upload step needed.'

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 explicitly guides when to use (public URLs from various services, direct HTTPS URLs) and provides detailed polling instructions. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and limitations (2 GB, long processing times) imply appropriate scenarios.

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