Import transcript

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description supplies the actual consequence: the transcript is re-cleaned, clips are picked again, and 'accepted and rejected fixes, cuts and corrections on the old transcript are lost for good'. That is exactly the irreversibility context an agent needs before a destructive call. It stops short of noting auth requirements or size/rate constraints, so a 4 rather than 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the source constraint, then the return shape and next step — no filler. The first sentence is long with nested parentheticals, which slightly slows parsing but every clause carries distinct information.

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 6-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers applicability states, the mutually exclusive source inputs, the destructive consequence, the return shape, and the required follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not encode: exactly one of text, uploadId or url must be supplied (the schema only requires id). That meaningfully reduces malformed calls beyond what the field descriptions convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Use an SRT or WebVTT file as the project's transcript') and explicitly contrasts it with the default path ('instead of transcribing'), which distinguishes it from siblings like reanalyze_project or refine_project. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Names concrete lifecycle states where it applies ('right after create_project (only the video is fetched)' and 'on a done or failed project'), and prescribes the follow-up call ('follow with wait_for_project'). It also gives the mutual-exclusion rule ('Give exactly one of text, uploadId or url'), leaving nothing to inference.

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