resolve_clear_transcription

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is destructive ('Delete') and highlights the recursive scope ('AND nested folders'), which is valuable. However, it does not state irreversibility, required project context, or what happens when both clip_name and folder_path are supplied.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the alternative scopes are clearly separated.

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 is not complete enough for a destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not clarify parameter priority, the meaning of 'current' folder, prerequisites like a loaded project, or what result the agent should expect. This ambiguity could lead to incorrect invocation when both parameters are relevant.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by connecting 'one clip' to clip_name and 'current/specified folder AND nested folders' to folder_path. Yet it leaves ambiguity about which parameter takes precedence, what 'current' means, and whether the two parameters can be used together.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete transcription') and clearly scopes the action to 'one clip' or a folder including nested folders. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like resolve_clear_audio_classification and resolve_get_transcript because it targets transcription deletion specifically.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_clear_audio_classification or when to prefer folder-scoped vs clip-scoped deletion. The description implies the use case but does not state exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites.

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