edit_pvc_voice_sample

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what is altered (audio, trim range, speaker selection, file name) or whether changes are reversible, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a three-word restatement of the title that front-loads no useful information.

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 mutation tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and undocumented fields needs far more than a restated title to be called correctly. Nothing about prerequisites, effect scope, or the trim/speaker options is conveyed.

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?

Seven parameters with only 43% schema description coverage: voice_id, sample_id, and remove_background_noise are documented, while file_name, trim_start_time, trim_end_time, and selected_speaker_ids are undocumented in both schema and description. The description contributes no meaning at all, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 is the tool name restated as a phrase ('Update Pvc Voice Sample'); it names no resource meaningfully beyond the title and gives no scope or distinguishing detail. Non-English/duplicate casing aside, it is a tautology rather than an explanation.

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 versus siblings such as delete_pvc_voice_sample, add_pvc_voice_samples, get_pvc_sample_audio, or edit_pvc_voice. An agent must infer entirely from the name.

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