subtitle.clean

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

The description discloses the execution modes ('optional local LLM and deterministic fallback'), which gives some insight into behavior. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting the input file (despite the 'overwrite' parameter), output handling, or any requirements. Without annotations, this is only partial transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded, conveying the essential action quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and a potentially nuanced behavior (optional LLM vs fallback), the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain the cleaning process, parameter interactions, or the importance of the fallback, making it insufficient for reliable agent selection and invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameters. It does not clarify the meaning or role of transcript_path, overwrite, config_path, or output_path, so it adds no value beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('clean') and resource ('transcript'), and the action is distinct from sibling tools like subtitle.export_srt or video.transcribe. However, it does not define what 'clean' entails (e.g., removing filler words, formatting), so it is clear on surface but not deeply distinctive.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any context such as prerequisites or typical use cases. It is a single declarative sentence without any conditional or comparative information.

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