Edit an existing custom style

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

The description provides important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that mechanical dials are ignored for sample-trained voices, while persona dials always apply. It also notes that the id and default-style pointer remain stable. This is critical context for understanding what the tool does and what side effects occur, significantly surpassing the annotations' idempotent and non-destructive hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and carries no redundant information. Every sentence adds essential context: the action, the stable identifier, and the conditional behavior of mechanical dials. It is compact and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (nested dials object, conditional behavior, no output schema), the description covers the key nuances effectively. It explains which dials apply in which scenario, which is the most important ambiguity. Minor omissions like explicitly stating that 'name' can be unchanged or that the styleId must be specified are already covered by the schema descriptions, so the description itself is complete enough for effective use.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the dials into persona (always apply) and mechanical (conditional) categories, clarifying how the 'dials' parameter behaves in practice. This enriches the semantics beyond the individual parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Rename a trained voice or adjust its dials in place.' It specifies the exact resource (existing custom style) and the scope (keeping id and default-style pointer stable). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_style_from_dials or fork_style, which create new styles.

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 phrase 'in place, keeping its id stable' clearly indicates this tool is for modifying an existing style rather than creating or forking. It implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for new styles. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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