screenstudio_transcript_edit

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint; the description goes further by disclosing that the edit applies live to the open editor and returns 'updated' or 'not-open', which tells the agent what success and failure look like. The leading-space caveat for corrected text is a real behavioral gotcha not derivable from the schema.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the operation types, then the index source, then the live-update outcome. The trailing clause about 'updated'/'not-open' is slightly awkward but carries information, so nothing is pure filler.

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?

With no output schema and only hint-level annotations, the description does supply the return statuses and the live-editor behavior, which is the critical missing piece. However it leaves the session parameter unexplained and doesn't clarify edit-array constraints (500-item cap, index bounds), so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0% and there are 3 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does explain index provenance, the text leading-space rule, and the meaning of removal, but says nothing about the 'session' parameter (which session it targets, why default 0) or projectPath, leaving real ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fix the transcript the captions show'), enumerates the two supported operations (correct a word/name, remove words), and names the sibling that supplies the indexes (screenstudio_transcript_read). An agent can distinguish it from screenstudio_transcript_read and screenstudio_transcript_generate without opening any schema.

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 the prerequisite for the index parameter ('Indexes come from screenstudio_transcript_read') and the two supported use cases, which is clear routing context. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. regenerating the whole transcript vs. patching individual words), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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