transcribe_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: local upload, internally driven 3-step flow, file size limit, and API key requirement. It does not mention return behavior or cost/consumption side effects, but for a transcription upload tool the key operational traits are covered.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the decisive usage condition and essential requirements. 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives a strong high-level context: local input, automatic upload flow, sibling alternative, and key constraints. It does not describe the returned result or polling behavior, but those are at least partially covered by parameter descriptions and the sibling ecosystem.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond noting that this tool shares the same options as transcribe_url, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: transcribe a LOCAL file by uploading it to Scriptivox. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling transcribe_url by explicitly scoping to local files and contrasting with public-URL usage.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use when the file isn't on a public URL.' It also points to transcribe_url as the related alternative and states prerequisites such as a configured API key and the 5 GB size limit.

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