replace_transcript

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

With zero annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers. It discloses the auth requirement ('needs the 'ingest' scope'), the concurrency protection via revision, the automatic regeneration of the summary, and the provenance marker (transcript marked as agent-edited). This is rich behavioral context that goes well beyond a simple mutation hint.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, use cases, and side effects are all covered. It front-loads the core action and the critical concurrency instruction early. It's not terse, but it is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 mutation tool with auth requirements, concurrency controls, and side effects (summary regeneration, provenance change), the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent the exact precondition, the scope needed, what happens to the summary, and how the change is labeled. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently covers behavioral consequences, so an agent can predict the outcome.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all five parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining why expectedRevision matters (to avoid overwriting concurrent changes) and by reiterating the segments-or-plaintext exclusivity pattern implied in the schema. It elevates the understanding of the revision parameter beyond mere format.

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 opens with a clear imperative 'REPLACE a recording's transcript' and specifies the scope requirement. It distinctly separates this from the read-only get_transcript sibling and describes the exact resource being modified. It also lists concrete use cases (fix STT, translate, enrich), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly instructs to call get_transcript first and pass its revision, framing the required precondition to avoid overwriting concurrent edits. It names specific scenarios where the tool is appropriate, such as fixing poor speech-to-text or translating content. Though it doesn't explicitly say when to avoid it, the guidance is so specific that it effectively tells an agent when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like get_transcript.

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