regenerateClonedVoiceSample

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the 'ready'-state precondition, which is real context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about whether the old sample is overwritten, whether regeneration is async/long-running, or any cost/rate implication.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action and the constraint; no filler. The trailing '(Tags: Voice cloning)' is catalog metadata rather than agent-relevant content, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight statement.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation with annotations present, this is close to adequate. It still leaves open whether the call is synchronous and what the agent should do if the voice is not in 'ready' state, which matters for a regenerate operation.

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?

Only one parameter (voice_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'ready' qualifier hints at a valid-state constraint on voice_id but adds no format or ID-sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Regenerate the sample audio for a `ready` voice' tells the agent exactly what changes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from getClonedVoiceSample (read) and updateClonedVoice (metadata edit), but never names those siblings, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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 qualifier 'for a `ready` voice' is a genuine precondition that gates usage, which is more than most one-liners offer. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never points to getClonedVoiceSample or updateClonedVoice as adjacent alternatives.

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