START_TRANSCRIPTION_JOB

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

The description states the tool starts a job and returns a message, but lacks behavioral details such as whether it is destructive, expected duration, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but is minimal.

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 extremely concise, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded without unnecessary words.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return. However, it omits potential error conditions, prerequisites, and does not leverage the context of sibling tools to clarify when to use 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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains 'path' as the file path to transcribe and 'language' with its default value ('ja'). This compensates for the schema having no descriptions, providing clarity on parameter usage.

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 tool's purpose: starting a transcription job for a specified file. It uses a specific verb ('起動する') and resource ('書き起こしジョブ'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like CHECK_TRANSCRIPTION_STATUSES, relying on the name alone for distinction.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., file must exist or be available). It only implies usage when wanting to start a job.

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