transcribe_recording

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It discloses key behaviors: uses Whisper, optionally applies diarization, saves transcript alongside audio, and updates the meetings table. This provides sufficient transparency for safe invocation, though it could mention any required permissions or side effects like overwriting existing files.

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 with a brief summary, optional condition, parameter explanation, and return value description. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining the first two sentences.

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 (1 parameter, optional diarization, side effects), the description covers input, process, side effects, and output thoroughly. The output is described in the description, compensating for any missing output schema details. It leaves no critical gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds essential meaning: 'recording_id: The meeting_id from the meetings table (shown in Meetings tab)'. This clarifies the source and how to obtain the value, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 action ('Transcribe'), the resource ('meeting recording'), and the specific tool used (Whisper). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from potential siblings like 'transcribe_voice' by specifying it works on meeting recordings and updates the meetings table, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling.

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 provides context for when diarization applies ('if installed and HF_TOKEN is set'), but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transcribe_voice'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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