Create transcription

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool performs a write operation (creating a transcription). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Transcribes audio into text.' It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file uploads, API costs), required permissions, or response behavior. With annotations already present, the description should provide additional context about the mutation's scope or constraints.

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 very short (one sentence, albeit redundant) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the awkward phrasing 'Create transcription Transcribes audio into text' wastes space with repetition. It is concise but could be clearer with better structure.

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 complexity (7 parameters including model, prompt, language, temperature, response_format, timestamp_granularities) and no output schema, the description fails to explain return values or the effect of advanced options. It does not mention supported response formats or timestamp capabilities, leaving the agent without crucial context for correct invocation.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it simply restates the file parameter's purpose ('Pass local file path.'). According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (100%), baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 that the tool transcribes audio to text ('Transcribes audio into text (Speech-to-Text)'), identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like translate_audio (which translates audio) and create_speech (text-to-speech). However, the phrasing 'Create transcription' is redundant with the following sentence, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., supported audio formats, file size limits) or when not to use it (e.g., for non-speech audio). The description does not help the agent decide between transcribe_audio and translate_audio or other audio processing tools.

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