import_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that it skips Whisper and requires word-level timestamps, but does not state side effects like overwriting existing transcript data or whether the import is append/merge. The 'into the UI' is vague — it doesn't say whether it replaces the current transcript or affects other assets.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that pack critical information — the use case (external transcript), the bypass of Whisper, and a hard requirement (word-level timestamps). All essential info is 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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, it would benefit from describing what happens on success/failure or whether it's idempotent. It also doesn't specify format expectations for the 'transcript' object beyond timestamps. It's adequate but not fully complete given the complexity of the transcript parameter.

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 high (100%), and the description adds context that the transcript must include word-level timestamps, which is critical. The schema already documents the file_path and the transcript structure, so the description adds the requirement for word-level timestamps beyond just the schema.

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 imports external transcripts into the UI and explicitly notes it skips Whisper. It differentiates from sibling transcribe_* tools by indicating it's for external transcripts, though it doesn't name a specific alternative tool.

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 a clear context (use for external transcripts, skips Whisper) but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies usage via 'instead of Whisper transcription' but lacks explicit exclusions.

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