Create Speech Engine. Create a new Speech Engine resource
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asr | No | ||
| tts | No | ||
| vad | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| turn | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| privacy | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| overrides | No | ||
| call_limits | No | ||
| conversation | No | ||
| speech_engine | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no explicit safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create', implying a mutation but adds no details about side effects, required permissions, response format, or failure modes. This is minimal and does not go beyond the obvious.
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 terse (two short sentences) but contains redundancy ('Create Speech Engine' and 'Create a new Speech Engine resource' essentially repeat the same information). It is not structured to front-load key details and wastes a bit of space, but it is not overly verbose either.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is drastically inadequate. It provides no explanation of what a Speech Engine is, what the required 'speech_engine' object entails, or what successful creation returns. The description does not help the agent understand the tool's role or usage.
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%, meaning the description adds no meaning to any of the 13 parameters. The schema itself is detailed, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage. There is no mention of required parameters, purpose of fields, or examples, making the parameters practically opaque to the agent.
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 creates a new Speech Engine resource, using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Speech Engine'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_speech_engine' and 'update_speech_engine' by implying a creation operation. However, the redundancy 'Create Speech Engine. Create a new Speech Engine resource' slightly detracts but does not obscure purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It merely states what the tool does without any exclusions or distinctions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.