translate_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires internet access, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid URLs), rate limits, or output format (e.g., text, file). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity (translation tool with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., translated text, error messages), behavioral aspects, or usage context, making it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 both parameters ('url' as YouTube video URL and 'targetLanguage' as target language). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples (e.g., language codes) or constraints (e.g., supported languages), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Translate video transcript' states the verb (translate) and resource (video transcript), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of translation (e.g., full transcript, partial, format) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_transcript' or 'summarize_video', making it vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a transcript first), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'get_transcript' (which might fetch the transcript) or 'summarize_video' (which might process it differently).

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