text_to_speech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value ('Returns: audio file path') and model support, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or write operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with the generated audio file. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 reasonably concise with three short clauses. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though could be more structured. Every sentence contributes information, though the 'Supports v3 with audio tags' feels tacked on rather than integrated into a coherent narrative.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, doesn't clarify what 'audio file path' means in practice, and doesn't address how the numerous configuration options interact. For a sophisticated TTS tool with many tuning parameters, this description leaves too much unexplained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 12 parameters, the description fails to compensate adequately. It mentions 'v2/v3/flash models' which relates to the 'model' parameter, and 'audio tags' which might relate to v3 features, but provides no explanation for the other 11 parameters like 'stability', 'similarity_boost', 'style', etc. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the bare schema.

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: 'Converts text to speech' with specific model versions mentioned (v2/v3/flash). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'text_to_dialogue' or 'text_to_sound_effects' by focusing on single-speaker narration, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'text_to_speech_v3' or 'text_to_voice' which appear to be similar 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 some usage guidance with 'Use when: single speaker narration' and mentions support for 'v3 with audio tags', which implies a specific use case. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'text_to_speech_v3' or 'text_to_voice' from the sibling list, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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