enqueue_files

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call is asynchronous and jobs can 'park' on a speaker-naming step requiring a separate resolution. It stops short of covering failure modes or what happens with duplicate/invalid paths, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the follow-up workflow and the sibling contrast. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still states what comes back (job ids) and outlines the full downstream lifecycle (poll, resolve naming). Nothing essential for invoking and using the result is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (paths, idempotencyKey) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces plurality ('one or more') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, matching the baseline for schema-documented params.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Queue one or more audio files') and states the immediate outcome (returns job ids). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling transcribe_file, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit next steps (poll with get_job) and the alternative resolution paths (confirm_naming or skip_naming), plus a direct contrast with transcribe_file. This is when-to-use and what-to-do-next guidance, not just implied context.

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