transcribe_share

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious gotcha (music-only reels produce noise) and the fact that it reuses the open_share download, but says nothing about permissions, cost/latency, or failure behavior for a tool that fetches and processes remote media.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, follows with the scoping caveat, then details the two args. No wasted sentences; the only quibble is that the 'Args' block is fairly terse in formatting rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 2-param transcription tool the description covers purpose, usage exclusions, and both parameters adequately; only operational context like auth or rate limits is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: message_id is explained with its source ('from the channel event') and to is explained with its default semantics ('Omit for the sole subscribed target'). Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb (transcribe) and resource (a shared reel's or post's videos), which is unambiguous. It also clarifies its relationship to open_share, but does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling for other use cases, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 a clear when-to-use rule ('Only when the words matter') plus an exclusion ('music-only reels give noise'), which is genuine guidance on when not to use it. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases where only the media (not the words) is needed.

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