generate_tts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that audio will be generated and whether scope is project-wide or slide-specific, but it does not say whether generation is synchronous or async, whether existing audio is overwritten, or whether a script must exist first.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately provides the key usage distinction. Every word earns its place.

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?

With zero required parameters in the schema but instructions implying at least one ID must be provided, the description does not clarify what happens if both are omitted or both are provided. There is no output schema and no mention of return behavior or pipeline prerequisites, leaving important gaps for an agent.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description's project_id/slide_id explanation adds no meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it merely repeats the single-slide vs all-slides distinction.

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 a specific action and resource: "Generate text-to-speech audio." It is distinct from sibling tools like generate_script, render_slides, and generate_video. The project_id/slide_id distinction also clarifies the two modes of operation.

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 gives clear scope-based usage: use project_id for all slides or slide_id for a single slide. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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