Transcribe audio/video to subtitles

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is partially covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that output files are written, where they land ('empty = next to the media file'), the accurate-mode performance cost, and what is returned. It stops short of covering failure modes or overwrite behavior on re-runs.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by terse per-parameter lines and a return summary; every sentence adds information and nothing is repeated from the 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return payload (files written, detected language, device, transcript text), and all five parameters are explained. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so for all five parameters: path form and accepted containers, ISO language codes plus 'auto', the accuracy/speed tradeoff, the valid format set (srt, vtt, txt, json) which is not enumerated in the schema, and the output_dir default behavior.

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 ('Transcribe a local audio or video file into subtitles / text') and names the output artifacts, which clearly separates it from siblings like find_media and list_devices. An agent can identify the tool's job 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the emphasis on a 'local' file with an 'absolute path' hints this is not for discovery (find_media) and the accurate-mode tradeoff ('slower, fewest errors') is a useful when-to-pick hint. However, no alternative tools are named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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