voicestudio_start_job

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

Adds real behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the call returns immediately with a job ID, gateway status persists, and work is NOT automatically retried after restart. That last point is important operational context not conveyed by destructiveHint/openWorldHint. It still doesn't say how to subsequently poll or cancel (the job_status/cancel_job siblings exist).

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then dispenses the two mode-specific usage rules compactly. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 fire-and-forget job launcher with no output schema, the description covers the return (job ID) and the persistence/retry semantics. It would be stronger if it pointed at voicestudio_job_status and voicestudio_cancel_job for follow-up, which is the natural next step for an agent.

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 burden and largely does: it explains that name holds the operation ID for kind=api, and that arguments for kind=native nests arguments and file_arguments. The internal shape of arguments for kind=api is not spelled out, leaving some ambiguity in a nested free-form object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a background operation') plus the immediate return value ('gateway job ID'), which distinguishes it from the synchronous call_api/call_native siblings. It does not explicitly name the sync alternatives, so an agent must infer that this is the async variant.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance for both modes: for kind=api use the operation ID as name and call_api arguments without operation_id; for kind=native use a native tool name with the arguments/file_arguments shape. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of call_api when you want non-blocking execution' statement, so the when-not is left implicit.

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