transcribe_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the version gate but says nothing about whether the operation is blocking or asynchronous, how long it takes, where the resulting transcript lands, or whether it consumes a rate-limited/paid service — all material for a mutation that kicks off a long-running job.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is tight, though the parenthetical version note would read better as a trailing caveat than mid-sentence.

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 zero-param, zero-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is minimum viable: it tells the agent what to call it on but not what state change to expect or how to retrieve the results afterwards, leaving the follow-on step to inference.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; it correctly conveys that the target is fixed to the active sequence.

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 names a specific action ("start automatic speech-to-text transcription") and a specific target ("the active sequence"), so the agent knows exactly what resource is affected. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as add_caption_sequence, import_captions, or get_caption_tracks, which an agent may confuse with transcription output.

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 '(Premiere Pro 2021+)' note is a real usage constraint and implies the sequence must be active (see set_active_sequence). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of the caption-track workflow that must follow, and no statement about what to do if a sequence is already transcribed.

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