voicestudio_call_native

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructive, open-world, non-idempotent), so the description is not the sole carrier of that information. It adds the file-passing behavior for reference/audio files, which is genuinely useful, but does not disclose that behavior is entirely delegated to the target tool, nor what happens on an unknown tool_name or a failed downstream call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the file-handling detail. The compact notation ({ref_audio_base64:file_id}) is dense but parses quickly; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should do more: it omits how native tools are discovered, what the response looks like, and how errors surface for a destructive dispatcher. The file_arguments coverage is a real contribution, but the discovery/response side of this meta-tool is left 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does clarify file_arguments with concrete key/value examples tied to specific target tools. It says nothing about the `arguments` passthrough object or how tool_name is expected to be resolved (the 'discovered' mechanism), leaving a meaningful gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it calls a discovered native MCP tool, passing through the original arguments. The word 'native' implicitly separates it from the sibling voicestudio_call_api, but the description never states that contrast explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the file_arguments mechanism (clone_voice vs transcribe key names) and one explicit when-not rule ('Large audio uses multipart HTTP API instead'). However, it never says when to pick this dispatcher over voicestudio_call_api, voicestudio_start_job, or calling generate_speech/clone_voice directly, which is the main selection decision for an agent.

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