align_audio_to_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not whether the operation is remote/paid (despite allow_paid and allow_unknown_cost parameters hinting at cost), not what is produced or where, and not whether anything is mutated. 'The documented forced-alignment endpoint' defers to external documentation rather than describing behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of substance.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know what the call returns, where alignment.json is written, or what the cost-gating flags do.

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% for 5 parameters, and the description only loosely implies that input_path is a local audio path and text is the transcript. The output filename, the max 100k text length, and especially allow_paid and allow_unknown_cost (which gate spending) are left completely unexplained.

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: aligning supplied text to a local audio file via forced alignment. The phrasing slightly inverts the tool name (align_audio_to_text), which could momentarily confuse direction, but the operation is identifiable and distinct from any sibling (none of which do forced alignment).

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over transcribe_audio (the inverse operation) or transcript_to_subtitles, no prerequisites, and no mention of when it should not be used. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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