Add Rules To The Pronunciation Dictionary. Add rules to the pronunciation dictionary. If a rule with the same string_to_replace already exists, it will be replaced.
Bulk support: accepts pronunciation_dictionary_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rules | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| pronunciation_dictionary_id | Yes | ||
| pronunciation_dictionary_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (which only indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive), the description discloses that existing rules with the same string_to_replace are replaced, a key behavioral trait. It also mentions bulk execution capability. This adds meaningful context not present in annotations.
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 short and front-loaded, but redundant: the first sentence repeats the tool name almost verbatim ('Add Rules To The Pronunciation Dictionary' vs 'Add rules to the pronunciation dictionary'). The bulk support note is clearly separated. Overall efficient but with minor redundancy.
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?
The tool has a complex input schema (nested rules array with two types) and no output schema. The description does not explain rule structure, required fields, or what happens on success/failure. It also lacks detail on permissions or side effects. Incomplete for a complex tool with zero annotation coverage.
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%, so the description must compensate but does not. It only mentions string_to_replace and pronunciation_dictionary_ids, giving minimal meaning to a couple of parameters. The rules array structure, the two rule types (alias vs phoneme), and other params like account remain 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?
The description clearly states the tool adds rules to a pronunciation dictionary and mentions replacement behavior for existing string_to_replace. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_rules or add_from_rules, relying on the name for distinction.
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 implies usage for adding pronunciation rules and mentions bulk support via pronunciation_dictionary_ids, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks contextual cues like 'use this instead of set_rules when...'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.