updateClonedVoice

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the description's burden is lighter. However, it adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say whether the update is partial or full replacement (are omitted fields preserved or cleared?), what permissions are needed, or what happens to the voice sample. It essentially restates the schema fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the operation and its fields with no filler. The trailing '(Tags: Voice cloning)' is metadata clutter that adds no selection value, keeping it from a 5.

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 mutation tool with annotations, a fully-described schema, and no output schema, the core information an agent needs to invoke it is present. The gap is the absence of update semantics (partial vs. full) and any error/permission context, leaving it merely adequate rather than complete.

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 both parameters and the nested requestBody fields are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description lists the same three mutable fields and therefore adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb ('Change') and resource ('cloned voice') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, gender), which distinguishes it from deleteClonedVoice/getClonedVoice in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly routing against any alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the voice exist / be cloned), and no mention of alternatives such as deleteClonedVoice or createClonedVoice. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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