retranscribe_attachment

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds real substance beyond that by stating 'The API overwrites the existing transcription' (what is destroyed), the undefined-effect case, and the error behavior ('passing an unknown code raises BadRequestError naming the allowed values'). It does not mention permissions or whether the operation is reversible, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the destructive/overwrite caveat, then parameter semantics. Four sentences, all carrying weight; slightly verbose in the model enumeration but each clause is informative rather than 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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the description covers preconditions, overwrite behavior, model set, and flag semantics. Coverage is strong; only auth/permission prerequisites are absent, which is a minor gap for a destructive operation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description exceeds it by enumerating the six allowed model values (the schema has no enum) and explaining that language accepts 100+ codes with an error on unknown values. It adds genuine meaning over the schema for model and language.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retranscribe an existing attachment with new transcription options.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_attachment_transcription (read) and upload_submission_attachment (create), so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

It gives a concrete precondition: the attachment 'must be audio or video; retranscribing a non-media file or a file that was never transcribed has undefined effect.' That is clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not (e.g., 'to read the current transcription, use get_attachment_transcription').

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