transcript_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real traits: the operation is a queueing/mutation, it is deliberately non-recursive (with the rationale about backup directories), and already-transcribed files are reused rather than re-queued. It does not mention permissions, cost/rate limits, or failure handling for partially bad folders.

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-loaded with the core action, and the rationale sentences (non-recursion, reuse) each earn their place by changing agent behavior. The prose is slightly padded with em-dash asides, but nothing is redundant.

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 not describing the returned job_ids is acceptable, and the description does tell the agent how to consume them. However, for a 4-parameter batch mutation with 0% schema coverage, the undocumented limit/pattern/language parameters and the unaddressed interaction between 'every media file' and pattern filtering leave real gaps.

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 0% and the description explains only one of four parameters ('folder must be absolute'). The semantics of limit, pattern, and language — notably that pattern defaults to '*' and can narrow what 'every media file' actually means — are left entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 and resource ('Queue every media file in a folder, one job each') along with the batch granularity — one job per file — so the agent immediately distinguishes this from transcript_create (single file) and transcript_list. The scope constraint (''folder' must be absolute') further pins the operation down.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to follow-up tools: poll job_ids with transcript_status or watch the set with transcript_list. What's missing is a 'when not' clause — nothing tells the agent to prefer transcript_create for a single file, which is the most likely sibling confusion given the tool name.

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