update_speaker

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description contributes genuinely non-obvious operational context beyond the annotations: the call spends ElevenLabs credits and the endpoint is deprecated upstream, both of which affect whether an agent should call it at all.

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?

Only two sentences, so size is fine and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the first sentence is grammatically malformed ('Update Metadata For A Speaker Spends ElevenLabs credits'), running the action and the cost note together, which slightly obscures both.

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 an eight-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description omits the field semantics, null-handling, and credit-cost magnitude. It would need to carry more weight here; the deprecation and cost notes are valuable but insufficient.

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 only 25% – just dubbing_id and speaker_id are documented, while voice_id, languages, voice_style, speaker_name, voice_stability, and voice_similarity are undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever (no field list, no null/omission semantics, no valid ranges for the numeric voice settings), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb (update) and resource (speaker), but 'Metadata' is vague about which of the eight fields are actually mutated, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_speaker, edit_pvc_voice, or get_similar_voices_for_speaker. An agent knows roughly what the tool does but not its precise scope.

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?

The description includes no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives, even though many speaker and voice tools exist. 'Deprecated upstream' is a genuine usage-relevant signal, but it is stated as a status rather than as a directive (e.g., 'prefer X instead'), so the agent is left to infer what to do.

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