Rehearse script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does so thoroughly: online dependency, error behavior (TTS_UNAVAILABLE, deck untouched), output files, rebalancing logic, and persistence of the effective WPM. This exceeds the transparency expected of a non-annotated tool.

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 dense but not bloated; each sentence adds a distinct operational detail (phase, process, output, error handling). It is longer than average but appropriate for a tool with multiple side effects, maintaining clear logical flow.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description compensates well by specifying outputs, side effects, and error behavior. It falls short of a 5 only because it does not explicitly describe the shape of the immediate success response (the drift report), leaving that detail to inference.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents voice and wpmOverride. The description adds context about their purpose (WPM drift model, Microsoft voice) but does not explicitly explain the required deckId parameter, which is only inferable from the phrase 'the deck's rehearsal/ dir'. Overall, the description offers moderate additional parameter meaning.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: synthesizing speaker scripts to audio via TTS, measuring durations, and producing a drift report. It uses specific verbs ('synthesize', 'measure', 'produce') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing a unique Phase 3 rehearsal workflow with explicit artifacts.

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 provides clear contextual usage: it's for Phase 3, rehearsal time only, and requires network access. It implicitly signals when not to use (offline) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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