Edit Voice Settings. Edit your settings for a specific voice. "similarity_boost" corresponds to "Clarity + Similarity Enhancement" in the web app and "stability" corresponds to "Stability" slider in the web app.
Bulk support: accepts voice_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speed | No | ||
| style | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| voice_id | Yes | ||
| stability | No | ||
| voice_ids | No | ||
| similarity_boost | No | ||
| use_speaker_boost | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses useful context beyond annotations: similarity_boost maps to 'Clarity + Similarity Enhancement' and stability to the 'Stability' slider, and bulk execution is supported. However, it does not explain effect on unspecified settings, null semantics, reversibility, or request/response behavior. No annotation contradiction is present.
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 mostly scannable, but 'Edit Voice Settings' duplicates the tool name and the phrase 'edit your settings for a specific voice' repeats the same idea. The mapping and bulk-support sentences are valuable, so the structure is adequate but not tight.
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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain update semantics, nullable field behavior, return values, errors, or how to use voice_id versus voice_ids. The UI mapping is helpful, but substantial context is missing for safe and correct invocation.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies similarity_boost and stability and mentions voice_ids for bulk mode, but leaves speed, style, use_speaker_boost, account, and the relationship between voice_id and voice_ids 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 action ('Edit Voice Settings') and the target resource ('settings for a specific voice'). It distinguishes the tool from read-oriented siblings like elevenlabs_get_voice_settings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 the main use case: editing settings for one or more voices. Bulk support is explicitly mentioned via voice_ids, but there is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over related tools such as elevenlabs_edit_voice or how voice_id relates to voice_ids.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.