Assign a speaker label to a time window on a podcast track, with a dry-run preview by default before applying the edit.
Assign the window's speaker label on a track (dry_run by default).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| end_sec | Yes | ||
| track_id | Yes | ||
| start_sec | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "track_id",
- "start_sec",
- "end_sec"
-]New value: +[
+ "track_id",
+ "start_sec",
+ "end_sec"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation and notes that dry_run defaults to true, but this default is already visible in the schema; it does not explain what changes on execution, whether changes are reversible, permissions needed, or output behavior. With no annotations, this is insufficient for a write 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?
The single sentence is front-loaded with the action, but it is under-specified for a 5-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here costs necessary context rather than removing redundancy.
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. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves agent-critical details missing: what a 'window' is, how a speaker label is chosen, and what each required parameter means. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only echoes dry_run, which the schema already documents with a default. The meanings of track_id, start_sec, end_sec, and project_path are left entirely undocumented.
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 states a specific verb ('Assign') and resource ('speaker label') on a track, so the general action is inferable. However, 'window's speaker label' is vague and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like speaker_attribute_tool or join_label_tool. No label values or window semantics are provided.
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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The '(dry_run by default)' note is a behavior, not a routing condition. An agent must infer appropriate usage entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.