Transcribe a multitrack session

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: merging, timestamp ordering, exact speaker attribution, and that speaker names come from filenames. However, it does not clarify the optional speaker_names parameter (does it override filenames?) or mention limitations, failure modes, or how model/backend/language affect behavior.

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?

The description is three sentences, each adding value: the core action, the rationale for exact attribution, and a practical setup tip. It is front-loaded with the main action and has zero fluff.

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 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and usage context but omits key details: no explanation of model/backend/language, no clarity on speaker_names vs filenames precedence, and no indication of the transcript output format beyond being speaker-labeled and timestamp-ordered.

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 only 40% (directory and speaker_names have descriptions). The description adds meaning for directory ('folder of per-participant recordings') and speaker_names ('Map filenames to speaker names'), but does not explain 'model', 'backend', or 'language' at all. It partially compensates but leaves the majority of parameters semantically undocumented.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Transcribe a folder of per-participant recordings and merge them into one speaker-labeled transcript ordered by timestamp.' It clearly states the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'exact speaker attribution' and being 'the recommended path for anything that needs per-speaker scores', which sets it apart from tools like transcribe_audio.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'the recommended path for anything that needs per-speaker scores.' It also provides a concrete setup prerequisite for Zoom. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling context makes the alternative clear.

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