voice_clone

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. While it mentions the return value ('Returns: new voice ID'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: required permissions, whether this is a long-running operation, rate limits, audio format requirements, or what happens if creation fails. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 well-structured: three short phrases separated by periods, each serving a distinct purpose (action, return value, usage context). No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does) comes first.

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?

For a creation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. While it states the basic purpose and return, it lacks crucial details about parameter requirements, behavioral constraints, error conditions, and what the voice ID can be used for. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'audio' and 'recordings' which hints at the 'files' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'name' or 'description' parameters at all. It doesn't specify audio format requirements, file size limits, or minimum recording quality needed for voice cloning.

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 clone from audio' specifies both the action (creates) and resource (voice clone from audio). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'get_voice' or 'text_to_speech' by focusing on creation from recordings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_voice_from_preview' which might be a closer alternative.

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: 'Use when: creating custom voice from recordings' gives clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the 'when' clause is helpful and distinguishes it from general voice tools.

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