transcribe_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clarifies that the file must be local and that the operation uses a specific model, but it does not mention potential upload/privacy implications, accepted formats, or failure behavior. The output schema likely covers return values.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful context about the source of audio files.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema, and a clear purpose. The description covers the input source and workflow context, tying into get_media. Minor omissions like format requirements are not critical enough to reduce completeness further.

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 does by indicating that 'caminho' refers to a local audio file and by referencing get_media as a source. It lacks details like accepted file extensions, but the single required path parameter is reasonably clear.

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 ('Transcreve') and resource ('arquivo de áudio local'), and names the exact model (ElevenLabs Scribe v2). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_media or send_text by focusing on local audio transcription.

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?

It states the intended context: audio already downloaded by get_media or brought in from elsewhere. It does not explicitly list exclusions, but there is no alternative transcription sibling, so the guidance is sufficient.

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