Review transcript fixes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose real side effects: the transcript is rebuilt and overlapping captions are re-rendered by default. It omits permissions/credits/re-render cost and reversibility, which matters for a mutation tool, but the core blast radius is stated.

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 front-loaded sentences covering purpose, side effect, and return shape with no filler. The trailing return-shape enumeration is dense but justified by the absence of an output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so spelling out { changed, rerendered, needsRerender, flags, hint } is valuable, and the rerender side effect is disclosed. What remains missing for a mutation with zero annotations is precondition/authorization context and whether re-rendering consumes credits or is undoable.

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 is 3; the schema already documents id, rerender (including the rerender_clips fallback) and the decisions array. The description adds one genuinely new nuance, that replacement text applies to an accepted *name* fix, but otherwise restates schema content.

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 pair (accept/reject) and resource (suggested transcript fixes), and ties the id space to the sibling list_transcript_flags, so it is unmistakably distinct from add_transcript_correction or import_transcript. The optional replacement behavior is also named inline.

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 parenthetical '(ids from list_transcript_flags)' establishes the required prior step, and the description clarifies that replacement text only applies to accepted name fixes. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or say when to skip this tool in favor of add_transcript_correction, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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