Update an ElevenLabs pronunciation dictionary's name or archive status by ID to correct word pronunciations for text-to-speech.
Update Pronunciation Dictionary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | The name of the pronunciation dictionary, used for identification only. | |
| archived | No | Whether to archive the pronunciation dictionary. | |
| pronunciation_dictionary_id | Yes | The id of the pronunciation dictionary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond 'update'. It does not explain patch semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved, what archiving does, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.
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 three words and functions as a title restatement rather than a structured explanation. It is concise but under-specified, with no front-loaded usage or behavioral detail to justify its brevity.
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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. While annotations cover safety hints and the schema covers parameters, the description leaves out patch behavior, intended use, and any operational context an agent would need.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already documents name, archived, and pronunciation_dictionary_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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 states a verb and resource: update a pronunciation dictionary. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool title and does not distinguish this tool from the similar sibling update_pronunciation_dictionaries or clarify the partial-update patch semantics.
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 update_pronunciation_dictionaries, get_pronunciation_dictionary_metadata, or other pronunciation dictionary tools. The description merely says it updates without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.