VOD 받아쓰기 시작

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) it discloses real behavior: the call returns immediately while work continues in the background, it is serialized to one job, it skips existing transcripts, and it does not affect attendance/progress records. The only gap is that it never says what the immediate return value is (job id or status object), which an agent needs for correlation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and destination, then alternatives, then constraints and side-effect disclaimers. Every clause carries a distinct fact — nothing restates the tool name or the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by declaring the async/background contract and where progress lives. Nearly complete for a 2-parameter job starter; the missing piece is what object is returned when it 'returns immediately'.

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 100%, and the schema itself explains cmid (LMS view.php?id number) and the language enum with the auto-detection vs. forced-language tradeoff in detail. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it sits at the baseline the schema earns.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it starts a background ASR transcription job for one LMS VOD and names the exact destination path pattern. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings (transcribe_status, stop_transcribe), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (target lecture follows set_course_tracking) plus concrete exclusions: only one job at a time, and it skips lectures that already have a transcript. It also names the alternatives for progress (transcribe_status) and cancellation (stop_transcribe).

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