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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context beyond annotations: it's permanent, irreversible, and explicitly notes which related entity (singing voices) is handled elsewhere. Does not describe auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the irreversibility warning and the sibling alternative. No wasted words.

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?

Complete enough for a destructive deletion tool with annotations covering safety. It covers irreversibility, provenance, and sibling routing. Missing only minor details like auth prerequisites, but those are less critical given the annotation signals.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (account and voice_id). The description references 'voice_id from mureka_list_voices with cloned: true', adding provenance guidance, but doesn't add format or syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (delete) and resource (a cloned speech voice), scoped to cloned voices only via 'voice_id from mureka_list_voices with cloned: true'. Distinguishes itself from mureka_delete_vocal by naming that sibling for singing voices.

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?

Explains when to use it (cloned speech voices) and names the alternative for a related case (mureka_delete_vocal for uploaded singing voices). The 'Cannot be undone' warning makes the irreversible nature explicit.

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