add_pvc_voice_samples

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context—it does not mention permissions, what happens to existing samples, whether training is required, or mutation impact. Given annotations already carry the safety profile, the description contributes nothing beyond them.

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 a single five-word phrase, front-loaded and with no wasted words. However, it is too terse to be useful, essentially duplicating the tool name.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, open-world external call, and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It provides no information about operation, return, or side effects, leaving the agent with only annotations and schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all five parameters (voice_id, files_paths, files_filenames, files_base64_list, remove_background_noise). The description provides no additional parameter semantics or format details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Add Samples To Pvc Voice' simply restates the tool name and title. It states a verb and resource, but adds no scope, no distinction from siblings like edit_pvc_voice_sample or create_pvc_voice, and does not clarify what 'samples' means in this context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_pvc_voice_sample, delete_pvc_voice_sample, or run_pvc_voice_training. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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