submit_transcription

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

The description discloses key behaviors: immediate job_id return, background processing, and parameter effects (num_speakers improves accuracy, asr engine selection). With no annotations, this adequately informs the agent of the tool's nature.

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 concise (3 lines) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions the return of job_id but lacks full structure. It covers main parameters but omits project, language, skip_diarization. The tool's complexity (6 params) is not fully addressed.

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 meaning for 3 of 6 parameters (file_path, num_speakers, asr) with format hints and usage context. However, project, language, and skip_diarization are not explained, and schema coverage is 0%, leaving gaps.

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: registering a transcription task for an audio file, returning a job_id immediately and processing in the background. It distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status and get_transcript.

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 parameter usage advice (e.g., when to use 'local' asr) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_zoom_tracks. No exclusions or context for selection.

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