speech_to_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is an asynchronous task-creation call and that it returns a task id, status, and output URLs, which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits auth/permission needs, cost implications, and how the 'wait' polling mode changes the call's blocking behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted text. Minor grammar slip ('a ElevenLabs') but the structure is efficient and readable.

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?

The description compensates for the absent output schema by naming the return fields (task id, status, output URLs) and signaling the async task model. But for a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks usage conditions and parameter meaning, leaving gaps an agent must fill elsewhere.

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 78%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what model slugs are valid, what diarize or tag_audio_events do), leaving it at the baseline for a high-coverage schema.

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 gives a clear verb (Create) plus resource (task) and disambiguates direction with '(speech to text)', which separates it from the sibling text_to_speech and text_to_sound. It does not, however, name an alternative or explain how it relates to the get_task sibling used for polling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_task (for retrieving an existing task) or text_to_speech. The agent must infer context purely from the tool name.

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