transcribe_to_labels

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses background execution, async return of job_id, and need for setup. Lacks details on potential modifications to project, error behavior, or prerequisites.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with key info. Could structure arguments more clearly (e.g., bullet list) 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?

Given no output schema, description lacks details on return value (job_id) and error handling. Missing prerequisites like needing an open audio track. Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description adds essential meaning. It lists model_size with values and language with ISO code or null. Adds value beyond schema which only had types and defaults.

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 'Transcribe audio and add Audacity labels', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling transcription tools by specifying the output is labels.

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?

Mentions that it is experimental, requires separate setup, and runs in background with job_id. Suggests using check_transcription_status for progress. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but context implies use for label generation.

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