Transcribe podcast episode

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that a single worker writes or replaces the JSON transcript beside the audio, that first-time model downloads require dashboard-recorded user consent, and that a missing runtime returns an error. These are concrete behavioral traits (mutation target, concurrency, consent gating, failure mode) not captured by the annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the pipeline and behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information (purpose, sequencing, mutation/consent/error behavior) with no waste.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is produced (a returned job, monitored via get_job_status), what gets written or replaced, the consent requirement, and the failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description's mention of consent_given largely restates the schema's own wording and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Queue local WhisperX transcription for a downloaded podcast episode.' It clearly distinguishes this action from the surrounding pipeline siblings (download_podcast_episode, get_whisperx_status, episode_to_corpus), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and does not do.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: use after download_podcast_episode and get_whisperx_status, monitor with get_job_status, then publish with episode_to_corpus. It also states the consent precondition and the reissue condition, so the agent knows when and how to invoke it versus its neighbors.

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