mimo.voice_design_create

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

The description discloses that the tool is stateless and stores prompts for reuse, which adds behavioral context beyond basic function. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, cost, or what happens on failure. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially meets it.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a behavioral note. It efficiently conveys the core idea without unnecessary words. Slightly more structure could improve scannability, but it is above average.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It covers basic purpose and a key behavioral trait (statelessness with prompt storage), but omits parameter details, usage prerequisites, and return value context. The output schema exists, so return values are not required, but parameter explanation is missing.

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 input schema has 4 parameters but 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain or give meaning to any parameter (name, sample_text, voice_prompt, optimize_text_preview). It only mentions prompt persistence, which relates to voice_prompt indirectly but does not clarify its format or constraints.

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 states the tool generates a custom voice timbre from a text description and provides an audition. It also notes statelessness and prompt storage, clarifying the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mimo.tts' or 'mimo.voice_clone_create', so it scores a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions statelessness and prompt reuse, but does not explain when a user should choose this over TTS or voice clone tools. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given.

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