clone_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool consumes one voice slot, requires a tier, saves under the provided name, and is immediately usable. It also explains the remove_background_noise parameter's effect. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any structured data would provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with a clear summary, ethical note, and parameter list. It is slightly longer due to the detailed guidance, but every sentence earns its place. A minor typo ('ofaudio') prevents a perfect score.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameter semantics, side effects (voice slot), prerequisites (tier), and ethical considerations. It even references related tools (generate_speech, account_status). This is highly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explains every parameter: name as the handle, audio_paths as readable files, description as optional stored text, and remove_background_noise as the denoiser flag. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'clone' and resource 'voice', clearly stating 'Clone a voice from audio sample(s) — ElevenLabs Instant Voice Cloning.' It distinguishes from siblings like generate_speech, which uses a voice, and save_voice which likely saves existing voices. The scope is well-defined.

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 explicit usage context: requires audio files on the machine, recommends ~1-2 minutes of clean single-speaker audio, and states the result is immediately usable with generate_speech. It also mentions prerequisites (tier allowing instant cloning, see account_status) and includes an important consent warning. This is clear when-to-use guidance with inferred alternatives.

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