speech_to_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns a task id, status, and output URLs, implying an asynchronous task model. However, it does not mention the async nature explicitly, nor the wait/polling behavior, auth requirements, or cost implications.

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, containing only two sentences, with the main point front-loaded. However, the grammar error 'a ElevenLabs' slightly detracts from polish, and it could arguably be more directly phrased as 'Transcribe audio using ElevenLabs via RunAPI.' Still, it is efficient and structurally clear.

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 tool has moderate complexity (9 parameters, async task creation) and no output schema, so the description must explain return values and behavioral nuances. It does mention the return format (task id, status, output URLs) but omits critical details like how to wait for completion, how callback_url works, what the language_code options are, and what diarize does. This makes the description incomplete for safe, 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 description adds no information about the parameters. The schema has 9 parameters but only one (model) has a description, leaving 78% undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining source_audio_url, diarize, language_code, or the wait/timeout semantics, which is a significant gap for a tool with this many parameters.

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 identifies the tool as creating an ElevenLabs speech-to-text task on RunAPI, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_speech and isolate_audio. The verb 'Create' and the resource 'task on RunAPI' are specific, and the parenthetical 'speech to text' confirms the function.

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 through the name and description—it is for creating speech-to-text tasks—but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task or text_to_speech. There are no exclusionary notes or alternative recommendations.

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