transcribe_to_file

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

Discloses experimental status, background execution (returns job_id immediately), need for separate setup, and requirement to use real paths. No annotations exist, so description bears full burden, and it adequately covers behavioral traits.

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?

Structured with clear sections and bulleted args list. The instruction block is somewhat verbose but essential for correct usage. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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?

Covers prerequisites, parameter details, background execution pattern, and cross-references to get_default_export_folder and check_transcription_status. No output schema exists, but the return value (job_id) is mentioned. Completeness is high given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter: path (absolute Windows), format (examples srt/vtt/txt), model_size (examples tiny to large-v3), and language (ISO or None). It adds meaning beyond schema types and defaults, though enum values are not fully listed.

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 transcribes audio and exports to a subtitle or text file. It specifies output formats (srt, vtt, txt) and distinguishes from similar tools like transcribe_audio and transcribe_selection by emphasizing file export.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: always inform user of save location, use get_default_export_folder if no path given, use absolute Windows paths, and monitor progress with check_transcription_status. No alternative tools are mentioned, but usage context is well-defined.

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