save_speaker

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does explain that pronunciation is applied automatically and that delivery parameters are base defaults overridable per line. However, it omits what happens if a speaker with the same name already exists (e.g., overwrite behavior) and any auth/rate-limit details, which is a notable gap for a save operation.

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: a clear opening sentence, a brief conceptual explanation, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the grouped parameter line for delivery settings keeps it concise despite the high parameter count.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the parameters and conceptual model, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., saved speaker object, success message) or potential failure scenarios. This missing return-value context is a gap for a save tool with no structured output contract.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by clearly explaining all 12 parameters. It gives concrete examples (e.g., name as 'narrator'), defines voice as ElevenLabs voice or saved clone, lists the base delivery parameters as a group, and explains pronunciation's automatic application. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific action: 'Save a reusable SPEAKER — a pinned voice + its base delivery — under a workspace.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by contrasting speaker (identity) with profile (mood), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explains when to use this tool by defining the speaker concept and how it relates to `speak` and profiles. It also gives practical guidance on workspace usage to avoid collisions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or refer to alternative tools like `save_profile` by name.

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