Write a recording down

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the call is asynchronous (it reports whether it 'started' rather than returning the transcript) and may fail with instructions on 'what the person must do instead.' That is meaningful for call planning.

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?

It is short (two sentences), but the phrasing is awkward and murky, especially 'The words arrive in its text as they are heard,' which is difficult to parse and does not clearly convey streaming vs. async behavior. It is compact but not cleanly front-loaded.

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, the description does the work of describing the return ('the answer says whether it started or what the person must do instead'), which is the key thing an agent needs. The main gap is the absence of any routing versus sibling transcription/meeting tools.

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% with a single 'file' parameter documented as the file record's id, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the expected id format or the file types accepted, leaving the baseline 3 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 conveys a specific verb+resource: transcribing a recording (audio or video) into a transcript on this computer. An agent can tell it produces a transcript, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like record_meeting or write_up_meeting, which are plausibly adjacent.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tools named. The agent must infer that this is for already-existing recordings rather than live capture, with no help distinguishing it from record_meeting.

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