clone_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the XTTS model is required, but nothing about output behavior, side effects, audio format requirements, or whether the voice is stored. This is minimal disclosure for a voice-cloning tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core action and a key requirement.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a minimal overview. It lacks essential context about return values, model behavior, prerequisites beyond the model, and how it relates to sibling tools. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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% with clear per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'audio sample', which is already implicit in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Clone a voice') and the source ('audio sample'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'speak' and 'synthesize_long_text' by focusing on voice cloning rather than plain synthesis.

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 implies usage when voice cloning is required, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'speak' or 'synthesize_long_text'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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