video.transcribe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the core transcription action and the local ASR backend, but does not describe output format, handling of existing files (overwrite), language detection, resource usage, or side effects. The 'normalized audio' hint is useful but insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's essence. However, given the tool's complexity, a bit more detail could be warranted, but this dimension specifically rewards concise writing, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description provides almost no contextual detail about when to use the tool, how to configure it, or what to expect. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of guidance on parameters and behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It fails to explain any of the 7 parameters, including the required audio_path. No mention of device, threads, language, overwrite, config_path, or output_path, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 clearly states the verb 'Transcribe' and the resource 'normalized audio', also specifying the local ASR backend. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like video.caption or subtitle.export_srt, which are about captions and subtitle exports, not raw transcription.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., what 'normalized audio' means or how to obtain it) or exclusions. The existence of sibling tools like video.caption suggests overlapping use cases, but the description does not address them.

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