Transcript Reembed

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the default operation (only missing embeddings), the force=true behavior (re-embed every record), and the API key requirement. It does not mention rate limits, output, or error handling, but it covers the key safe-operation aspects.

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 two sentences long with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information: purpose, default scope, force flag, and environmental prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, default behavior, force mode, and prerequisites. It could mention the return value or side effects, but the parameter schema covers the configurable aspects, making this a sufficient and complete description for an AI agent.

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 100% for all 3 parameters, and the description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior associated with force=false and the typical use case. The limit and concurrency parameters are already well-described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to duplicate them.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb+resource ('Compute or recompute OpenAI embeddings for persisted transcripts') and distinguishes it from sibling retrieval/search tools by explaining the default scope (records ingested without an embedding) and the force option.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (typical after adding the OpenAI key to an already-populated archive) and explains the force parameter's behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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