media.subtitle.generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond saying an SRT sidecar is generated, it does not state whether this is a mutating operation, whether it overwrites an existing subtitle file, whether it triggers an asynchronous job, or what the output/return behavior is. Given the rich sibling job tools (media.job.status, media.job.run_once), a generated artifact might be async, and this is 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?

One information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and artifact while adding the source constraint at the end. Every word earns 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a loose input schema (required projectId only plus additionalProperties true), the one-liner is not complete enough. An agent is left unsure whether the tool returns the SRT content directly, writes a file, or enqueues a job, and it does not know how to provide or expect the 'storyboard dialogue' input.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without explicit parameter details. The description adds a little context by naming 'storyboard dialogue' as the source, but it does not explain the required projectId or the meaning of additional allowed properties. The parameter semantics are therefore acceptable but not enriched.

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 action ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('SRT sidecar'), and a clear source ('storyboard dialogue'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling generation tools like media.image.generate or media.video.generate because none of them claim subtitle creation.

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 phrase 'from storyboard dialogue' implies the tool should be used when the user wants subtitles derived from a storyboard, but the description never explicitly frames when to use it or when not to. It also does not mention any alternative tools or prerequisites such as an existing storyboard or plan.

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