start_batch

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does so by detailing sequential processing, validation after completion, and flagging of empty/short outputs. It could be improved by noting potential failure modes or permissions needed.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. No unnecessary information, and each sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers main behaviors and output (batch ID) but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if folder is invalid) or edge cases like no untranscribed files. Still, it's reasonably complete for a batch start tool.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., default for language and threads) but does not significantly enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly specifies the tool's action: starting an automated sequential batch transcription of untranscribed files in a folder. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the batch ID for use with check_batch_progress, differentiating it from single-file or other batch transcription tools.

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 when to use this tool (for batch transcription of untranscribed files) and what to do with the result (use batch ID with check_batch_progress). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like transcribe_audio for single files.

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