process_audio

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async behavior ('Returns immediately'), the delayed result location ('<outbox>/<clip>/'), and the polling pattern. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it omits error cases or permissions, which would require additional context.

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 focused sentences: the first states the purpose and pipeline, the second explains the asynchronous workflow and where results land. No filler words, and all information is valuable.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what is queued, the pipeline stages, the immediate return, the output location, and how to retrieve results. It is complete for a user to use correctly without further documentation.

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?

The schema only shows a required 'path' string with 0% coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that 'path' points to an audio/video file to be queued for the pipeline. Although it doesn't detail format constraints, it gives sufficient meaning for the single parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Queue') and resource ('one audio/video file') with explicit pipeline steps: voice isolation -> transcription -> speaker diarization. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like process_folder (for folders) and transcribe_quick (likely a lighter pipeline).

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 description gives clear context: use for a single audio/video file requiring the full pipeline, and it instructs to poll status() for results. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set and phrasing make the intended use obvious.

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