enhance_dialogue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Returns: enhanced text with v3 tags,' which partially describes output behavior. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 and front-loaded: three brief sentences that cover purpose, output, and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and usage but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits (e.g., side effects), and output specifics beyond 'v3 tags.' For a tool with one parameter but no structured documentation, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent operation.

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. It mentions 'dialogue' but doesn't explain the 'dialogue_blocks' parameter's format, content expectations, or constraints (e.g., length, language). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's title ('Dialogue Blocks'), failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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: 'Adds audio tags to dialogue' specifies the verb (adds) and resource (audio tags to dialogue). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., text_to_speech, get_v3_tags) by focusing on enhancement rather than generation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from text_to_dialogue or text_to_sound_effects, which might have overlapping functions.

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 guidance: 'Use when: improving dialogue with emotions and effects.' This gives clear context for when to apply the tool. It doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., text_to_dialogue), but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand its primary use case.

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