speech_to_speech

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'audio file with new voice', which hints at output behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, file format support, or whether the transformation is reversible. For a tool that modifies audio, this lack of detail on behavioral traits is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core action ('Transforms voice in audio'), states the return value, and provides usage guidance in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (audio transformation with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and output specifics. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially for a mutation tool with undocumented inputs.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain what 'input_file_path', 'voice_name', or 'output_directory' mean, their formats, or constraints. With 3 parameters and low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving semantics unclear.

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: 'Transforms voice in audio' and 'changing speaker voice in existing audio', which specifies the verb (transform/change) and resource (voice in audio). It distinguishes from siblings like 'speech_to_text' or 'voice_clone' by focusing on voice transformation rather than transcription or cloning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'text_to_speech' or 'text_to_voice', which involve voice generation rather than modification.

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 includes 'Use when: changing speaker voice in existing audio', which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, such as using 'voice_clone' for creating new voices or 'speech_to_text' for transcription instead. This implied usage is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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