voice_clone

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions cost and charging but fails to clarify the role of 'voice_id' (input or output?) and does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or error handling. The ambiguous description of voice_id undermines transparency.

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 somewhat lengthy due to a docstring-style parameter list that partly duplicates the schema. The cost warning is helpful but adds extra length. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the structure could be tighter.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover all aspects. It explains return format partly but misses output_directory, prerequisites for audio files, error handling, and the exact meaning of voice_id. This leaves significant 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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining file, text, and is_url. However, voice_id is poorly described as 'the id of the voice to use' without clarifying if it's source or target, and output_directory is omitted entirely.

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 explicitly states 'Clone a voice using provided audio files', clearly identifying the verb (clone) and resource (voice). It distinguishes from siblings like text_to_audio and text_to_image by focusing on voice cloning from audio.

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 cost warning advises to use only when explicitly requested, giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like text_to_audio for simpler cases, leaving some ambiguity.

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