Create a style from dials

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent behavior, but the description adds specific context: 'Call again with the same name to overwrite' and the fact that dials map onto the same measurements as train_style, ensuring a dial-built style is equivalent to a trained voice. This enriches the behavioral model without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use case, dial structure and equivalence, overwrite behavior. It is dense but logically organized and appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, usage scenarios, parameter grouping, and overwrite semantics. It lacks details on return values or success behavior, but no output schema exists and the sibling set provides context. Minor gap is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage and clear description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaningful grouping ('3 persona dials... plus 8 mechanical dials') and clarifies the semantics of entropy ('how much AI-typical structural regularity to break'), providing context not fully captured in individual field descriptions.

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+resource: 'Build a style profile from explicit dial values' and clearly distinguishes from train_style by contrasting with 'writing samples'. It also explains the two categories of dials and ties the output to the same measurements as train_style, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'for when the user wants to hand-tune a voice (or doesn't have samples handy)' and names the alternative tool (train_style) when samples are available. The overwrite note also guides behavior on repeated calls, making usage direction clear.

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