text_to_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns: three voice preview files'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like whether this creates permanent resources, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the preview files are in. The description adds some context but leaves significant 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 short sentences that each earn their place (purpose, return value, usage context). Zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return information but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and output format specifics. It's minimally adequate for understanding what the tool does but insufficient for confident usage without additional documentation.

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 'voice_description' and 'text prompt' contextually, but doesn't explain any of the three parameters (voice_description, text, output_directory) beyond what's in their titles. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond 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: 'Creates voice from description' specifies the action (creates) and resource (voice). It distinguishes from siblings like text_to_speech (which likely generates speech from text rather than creating a voice model) and voice_clone (which might clone existing voices). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings.

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: designing custom voice from text prompt.' This clearly indicates the intended context. It doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is well-defined for the given scenario.

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