create_voice

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds the important cost context that it spends ElevenLabs credits, which annotations do not cover. However, it says nothing about what happens to existing voices or the preview-to-voice relationship.

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?

It is short and front-loads the verb, but the run-on phrasing 'Voice From Voice Preview Spends ElevenLabs credits' reads as two clipped clauses fused together, hurting clarity. No wasted sentences, but structure is clumsy.

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?

With five parameters, only 60% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry more weight but does not. It omits the preview-to-creation workflow and any return/confirmation behavior, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 60% and the schema itself already explains generated_voice_id's provenance and the other required fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create A New Voice From Voice Preview.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pvc_voice and add_voice, which use different sources. No explicit sibling naming, but the 'from voice preview' scope is reasonably differentiating.

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?

Implies usage context by saying the source is a voice preview and warns it spends credits, but never states when to use this vs. design/remix/text_to_voice siblings or what prerequisites exist. Usage is only weakly implied.

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