transcribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no file is written, what comes back (start/end seconds, SRT text, engine), and that access is limited to Creator and Pro plans, but says nothing about duration limits, that the cloud engine uploads content, or that cloud minutes are consumed at cost.

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?

It is short and every sentence carries some information, but the opening fragment is not front-loaded with an action verb, and 'Creator and Pro' is compressed to the point of being ambiguous about what it gates.

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 no output schema, the description does describe the return payload, which is the main job here, and the schema covers all four parameters richly. However, with zero annotations the behavioral picture (file size/length limits, cloud upload implications, fallback when minutes run out) is only partially filled in.

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 the schema already explains path, lang, engine and keyterms in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 conveys the resource (a local video/audio file) and the payoff (word-level timings, SRT text, engine name), but it never states the action in a verb – it is a sentence fragment that only makes sense because the tool name is 'transcribe'. It does not clearly separate itself from caption_video beyond 'Writes no file'.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus caption_video, list_styles or studio_link. The only routing hint is the implicit 'Writes no file', which is a side effect rather than a usage rule, and 'Creator and Pro' is unexplained gating without naming the alternative for other plans.

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