Clone a voice

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

Adds substantial facts the annotations do not carry: the upload itself is free but requires a funded account, the returned handle expires in roughly 7 days, and cloning is consent-gated. One nuance: the sample may be an https:// URL, which implies an outbound fetch despite openWorldHint=false — a mild tension an agent should not have to resolve on its own. No error or failure-mode behavior is described.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and payoff come first, constraints second. The parenthetical '(route "carpe", same model)' is jargon-dense and slightly slows comprehension, but nothing is expendable.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys the return value (a vv_… handle) and its lifetime, plus the cost and consent preconditions — enough to call it correctly and to know what comes back. Remaining gaps are minor: failure behavior for rejected samples or unfunded accounts.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest meaning — the sample should be short and single-speaker, and the clone uses the same model as carpe_tts — but says nothing about the model parameter's tradeoffs beyond the schema's default.

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?

Names a concrete verb and resource (upload a reference sample, clone a voice) and states the outcome explicitly: a vv_… voice handle for carpe_tts. It routes the agent to the consuming sibling (carpe_tts, route "carpe", same model), so it is distinguishable from every other sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives real preconditions: a short sample with exactly one speaker, a funded account, and consent that must be genuine. It also states the handle's downstream use via carpe_tts. It stops short of explicit negative guidance (e.g., when to reuse an existing handle instead of re-cloning, or what to do if the sample has multiple speakers).

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