upload_asset_transcript

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Upload' without explaining whether this is a create/replace operation, validation behavior, permission requirements, or impact on existing transcripts. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 a single, coherent sentence that communicates the core purpose and example formats without unnecessary words. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter upload tool, the description provides adequate basic context. However, it lacks detail on return values, error behavior, whether the transcript replaces or appends, and any specific prerequisites. It's minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 50%: 'id' is described as 'ID of the resource' but 'transcript' has no schema description. The description adds value by clarifying 'transcript' format (WebVTT or plain text) and implies 'id' refers to a video asset. This partially compensates for the schema gap, but leaves the semantics of 'id' still somewhat generic.

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 the verb 'Upload' and the specific resource: 'closed-caption / transcript text for a video asset'. It distinguishes itself from generic upload tools (upload_file) and asset update tools (update_asset) by specifying the transcript content type and target asset.

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. It doesn't mention when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), or contrast with similar upload/update tools. The context is implied but not explicit.

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