apply_transcript_gate_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: retained speech and unresolved audio stay open, the plan's policy/scope is persisted for later renders, alignment respects saved timing, and alignment can trigger transcript reconciliation. That is genuine side-effect disclosure, but it omits what apply=false or override_placement_lock=true actually do, and whether the operation is destructive or reversible.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the remaining four sentences are abstract and jargon-heavy ('policy and scope', 'saved timing choices') without adding concrete guidance. Roughly half the text is padding that does not earn its 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But given 9 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a mutating 'apply' operation with a dry-run mode, the description leaves key invocation decisions (what dry_run returns, whether override_placement_lock is dangerous, what 'source scope' resolves to) unaddressed.

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% across 9 parameters, and the description names no parameter at all. The only faint signal is 'runs by default,' which loosely gestures at align_retained_bleed's default, but dry_run, apply, override_placement_lock, and the scope parameters (start_sec/end_sec/speaker/track_id/project_path) are left completely unexplained. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Apply an acoustic bleed plan to fresh dialogue stems and persist its source scope.' An agent can grasp the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like apply_bleed_suppression_tool or align_retained_bleed_tool, and the name ('transcript_gate') diverges from the body ('acoustic bleed'), which muddies identification.

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 implied context ('Later renders reuse the plan's policy and scope') that hints at when the persisted plan matters, and it notes alignment runs by default. But it never states when to choose this tool over apply_bleed_suppression_tool, speaker_gate_track_tool, or the align_retained_bleed_* siblings, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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