Transcribe asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. The word "Force" adds real signal that an existing transcript may be recomputed or overwritten, but the description never confirms that, nor whether the call is synchronous, how long it takes, or what permissions it needs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the return-value note is compact. Nothing is padded, though the extreme terseness leaves key operational questions unanswered rather than making those sentences earn their 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?

The description usefully covers the return payload ("transcript words + timing") in the absence of an output schema. For a forced, potentially long-running transcription job it omits sync/async behavior, polling expectations, and overwrite semantics, which are the details an agent most needs before invoking it.

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 100% and both parameters (fileName, language) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only "existing asset" as a hint about the path and says nothing about the language hint's behavior.

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: "Force transcription of an existing asset." It is unambiguous about what the tool produces, though it never names a sibling or explains how it differs from edit/queue tools in the same family.

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?

Only implied guidance: the asset must already exist. There is no statement of when to call this versus other job-oriented siblings (check_job_status, check_task_status), nor whether the call blocks, must be polled, or should be preferred over an existing transcript.

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