transcribe_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns immediately (asynchronous behavior) and requires polling. This is sufficient for a non-destructive start-job tool. No destructive or permission details are missing.

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 description is extremely concise: three short paragraphs for purpose and returns, plus a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (start async job with two parameters) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown, the return value is described), the description covers all essential information: usage, parameters, return format, and next steps with sibling tool. It is complete for its complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does: file_path requires absolute path with examples (mp3, wav, m4a), and language specifies codes ('en', 'de', 'auto') with default 'auto'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Start a transcription job and return a job_id immediately.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools transcribe_list_jobs and transcribe_result by focusing on job initiation and immediate return of an identifier.

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 explains the return value (job_id) and explicitly instructs to pass it to transcribe_result for polling. This provides a clear workflow and usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the sibling.

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