forced_alignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in the structured data: the call consumes ElevenLabs credits. It says nothing about the 1GB file limit, required inputs, or processing/Latency characteristics, but that content is largely in the schema.

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 only two fragments and front-loads the action, with zero filler. However, the phrasing "Create Forced Alignment Spends ElevenLabs credits" is grammatically garbled, reading as a run-on rather than two clean statements, which slightly undercuts clarity.

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 annotations covering safety/write mode and a fully documented schema, the description needs mainly to state purpose and notable costs. It does capture the credit cost but omits any routing guidance against the numerous sibling audio tools, leaving the agent to infer when alignment is the right choice.

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 100%, and each parameter (text, file_path, file_base64, file_filename) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names a verb ("Create") and resource ("Forced Alignment"), so the agent can infer this is an audio/text alignment operation. However, it offers no scope detail and no differentiation from siblings (e.g., transcribe, speech_to_text), which would help an agent distinguish alignment from plain transcription.

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 transcribe or speech_to_text. The only added sentence is about billing, not usage context.

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