export_transcription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'export' without explaining whether the export returns a file URL, downloads directly, or requires further actions. Side effects like storage consumption, rate limits, or auth requirements are not mentioned.

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?

While the description is very concise (one sentence), it is under-specified. It is not a model of conciseness because it omits essential information. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth, making it insufficient for correct tool invocation.

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?

Despite complexity (7 params, 1 required, enums, boolean flags) and an existing output schema, the description provides no context about return values, parameter interactions, or usage examples. It is far from complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage (no titles or descriptions). The tool description adds no explanation for any parameter. For example, 'paragraph_size', 'is_single_paragraph', 'merge_same_speaker_segments' are left completely ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action (export) and the resource (a transcription), and lists the exact output formats (txt, srt, pdf, docx). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_file_content' or 'get_summary' which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_file_content', 'get_summary', or 'transcribe_*' tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a completed transcription) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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