start_video_transcription

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool is asynchronous (returns immediately with job_id and status) and describes the force_run parameter's effect on caching. This is comprehensive.

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 concise (two short sentences plus bullet-like parameter list) and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: action, async behavior, return, and all parameters. It lacks details on error handling or file size limits, but overall it is sufficient for correct use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description lists all five parameters with their meaning, valid values (e.g., model names, language codes, output formats), and constraints ('must exist' for input_file). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool enqueues a transcription job using Whisper on video/audio files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_audio_extraction or start_change_format. The verb 'Enqueue' and resource 'transcript job' are specific.

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 implies the tool is for transcription tasks, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like start_audio_extraction or get_job_result. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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