create_speaker

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses two facts the agent could not infer: the call consumes ElevenLabs credits, and the endpoint is deprecated upstream. Both are decision-relevant. It still omits error/failure behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is above the bar.

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?

Very short, but the first sentence is a run-on fragment ('Create A New Speaker Spends ElevenLabs credits') whose missing punctuation blurs the action and the cost caveat together. The deprecation note is tacked on rather than front-loaded, which is the opposite of what an agent needs to see first.

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?

A six-parameter mutating tool with 17% schema coverage, no output schema and no annotation coverage of cost or lifecycle needs far more than two fragments. The description never explains the dubbing context, what a 'speaker' maps to, or how the five undocumented voice parameters behave.

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 17% — only dubbing_id is documented, while voice_id, speaker_name, voice_style, voice_stability and voice_similarity are bare. The description compensates with nothing: no parameter names, no formats, no valid ranges for the numeric voice-tuning fields.

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 phrase 'Create A New Speaker' gives a verb and a resource, so the basic action is identifiable, but 'speaker' is ambiguous in a catalog full of dubbing, voice and speaker-separation tools. The description never says this creates a dubbing-project speaker, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like update_speaker or create_voice.

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?

'Deprecated upstream' is the only usage signal, and it is not actionable: it doesn't say whether to avoid the tool, what replaces it, or under what conditions it still works. There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named.

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