annotate_transcription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for what is clearly a write/create operation. It does not state whether the annotation persists, who can see it, whether it requires authentication, whether repeated calls duplicate annotations, or what the citable link looks like at call time. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe returns, but the mutation semantics remain undisclosed.

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; the action, the input, and the resulting artifact are all in the first clause. Nothing is wasted.

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 7-required-parameter write tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what coordinate system x/y/w/h use, what format the manifest_url must take, or what the side effects of recording an annotation are; the existing output schema covers only the return value.

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 all 8 properties are bare titles, with x/y/w/h being single letters and nothing indicating coordinate space, units, or that they describe a bounding box. The phrase "canvas region" weakly implies the x/y/w/h geometry and "transcription" implies text, but manifest_url, canvas_id, and the optional language parameter get no clarification at all.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Record") with a specific resource ("a transcription of a canvas region") and names the output artifact (a W3C annotation with a citable link). It is unambiguous what the tool produces. It does not reference the sibling tools, but the write/annotate nature distinguishes it implicitly from read-only describe_manifest and view_region.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus describe_manifest or view_region, nor any preconditions such as needing a manifest_url or a canvas_id discovered elsewhere. The only implicit hint is that a "canvas region" must exist, which an agent must infer.

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