voicememos_transcribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses asynchronous background execution, an immediate job_id return, the default skip-if-transcript-exists behavior implied by redo, and the conditional Roam side effect. It omits failure behavior, cost/rate implications of transcription, and how to check job completion.

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?

Front-loaded with the two facts an agent needs (what it does, what it returns), then a scannable Args list. The stray 'or:' artifacts and blank-line formatting add mild noise but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the async contract, the return value, and every parameter's meaning. The main missing piece is the follow-up workflow for the returned job_id, which matters for a background job tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does — it explains all five parameters including the YYYY-MM-DD date format, the redo semantics, and that push_roam only applies if Roam is configured. Minor gaps: no statement that memos and since/until are alternatives, and the 'or:' phrasing is garbled.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+mode: 'Queue memos for transcription in the background', plus the immediate return value 'job_id'. That clearly separates it from voicememos_transcribe_status and voicememos_read, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The Args block implies two selection modes (explicit memo ids vs. since/until date range) and flags redo for re-transcription, which gives usable context. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it point to voicememos_transcribe_status for polling the returned job_id.

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