transcript_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is the only disk-writing operation, that it happens only on request, that dest_path must be absolute, and that the write is atomic ('nothing partial is left behind'). It omits whether an existing file at dest_path is overwritten and what permissions/auth are required, which are material gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the action, then the write semantics, then the response-handling guidance. The markdown-vs-code-block styling advice is somewhat peripheral but earns its place by instructing the agent on output formatting.

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 needn't be re-explained, yet the description usefully flags download_urls and view_url. Combined with the atomicity note and absolute-path constraint, this is nearly complete; only overwrite behavior and any permission requirements are missing for a disk-writing 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It adds real meaning for dest_path (absolute requirement) but says nothing about the `format` parameter or its srt default, and nothing about job_id. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Write a transcript to a file at a path you choose') and immediately distinguishes itself from the read-style siblings ('The only thing Transcriptor writes to disk'). An agent can tell this apart from transcript_get or transcript_list without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this when a file path is wanted, and if the user asked for a link, hand them the download_urls/view_url instead of writing a file. It names the condition that selects each path, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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