create_dialogue_voice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the idempotency semantics and an inline return shape including an already_existed flag, which tells the agent a repeat call is safe and how to detect a pre-existing asset.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the create action, with the return fields enumerated compactly. The return list is long but earns its place given there is no formal output schema; no filler text is present.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description closes the key gaps: it establishes idempotency, tells the agent the follow-up mutation needed to finish the object, and inlines the return field names. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so both parameters (name, package_path with its default) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions object_path, but that is a returned field rather than an input, so it adds no parameter syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create') and resource ('UDialogueVoice asset'), plus its idempotent character, so an agent knows exactly what asset class results. It is clearly distinguishable from read/enumerate siblings and from the set_properties follow-up it references.

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?

It gives a concrete post-creation step ('Populate Gender/Plurality afterwards via set_properties on object_path'), which is useful workflow guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or which prerequisite contexts are required, so selection guidance remains implied.

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