create_voice_from_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'Saves' (implying a write operation) and returns a 'permanent voice ID', but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if the generated_voice_id is invalid. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the action and specifying usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral details, or return format beyond a brief mention of 'permanent voice ID'. For a write operation with multiple inputs, more context is needed.

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 for undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain any of the three parameters (generated_voice_id, voice_name, voice_description) beyond what's in their titles. No additional meaning is provided about format, constraints, or examples, leaving significant gaps.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Saves generated voice to library') and identifies the resource ('voice from text_to_voice previews'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for saving previews, unlike tools like 'get_voice' or 'search_voice_library'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'voice_clone' or other voice creation tools.

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 explicit usage context with 'Use when: keeping voice from text_to_voice previews', clearly indicating when this tool should be used. It doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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