cigchat_flow_settings_set_audio_transcription

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the required 'Manage Flow' scope and the HTTP POST method, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting existing settings), idempotency, or response behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and packs essential details (endpoint, auth, allowed values) compactly. The comma-separated list is slightly unwieldy but acceptable for the information density.

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?

For a simple single-parameter setter, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what values are allowed, and the required permission. It doesn't specify the response format or explicitly note that it overwrites the current setting, but given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably complete.

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 only defines stt_model as a required string with no description or enum. The description compensates by enumerating all accepted values (none, whisper-1, gpt-4o-transcribe, etc.), which is critical for correct invocation. It could add more context about the meaning/default but largely fills the schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Set audio transcription' with a specific resource and action. The list of available values and the endpoint further disambiguate it from sibling set_* tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage (changing the audio transcription model) and includes a prerequisite (Manage Flow scope), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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