transcribe_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses idempotency, soft-delete semantics, a 409 CONFLICT failure mode, and the API key requirement. It does not state the successful response shape or whether the soft-delete can be undone, but the disclosed behaviors are materially helpful and far beyond a minimal mutation description.

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 contains four short, high-value statements in a rational order: the action, its idempotency, its key conflict behavior with a workaround, and its authentication requirement. There is no repeated information from the schema and no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter delete tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, idempotency, the important conflict case, and auth. It does not describe success-path return codes, but the 409 handling plus cancel workflow is squarely the most job-relevant context an agent needs before calling the tool.

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%: the only parameter, transcription_id, is already described as a UUID transcription ID. The description adds no new meaning beyond associating that ID with the transcription record, so the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a Scriptivox transcription record.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling cancel operation by framing cancel as a prerequisite for deleting in-flight jobs, so an agent can tell transcribe_delete apart from transcribe_cancel without opening either 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 provides an explicit workflow condition: if the job is still in-flight, cancel first via transcribe_cancel. This directly tells the agent when it may use delete and what alternative to use instead, which is exactly the kind of routing guidance this dimension rewards.

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