upload_speech_audio

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new operational detail: 50 MiB / 300 s limits, a local FFmpeg/FFprobe dependency, and the privacy-relevant note that existing upload URLs may be public. It stops short of describing failure/error behavior or auth prerequisites.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and its source constraint, then limits, dependencies, side effect, and exclusions. No filler sentences; each clause carries a distinct fact.

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 one-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return value (a local account-scoped speech_asset_id), the size/duration bounds, and the non-synthesis scope. Only the file_path semantics and failure behavior remain thin.

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 0% and the single file_path parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only indirectly informs it by stating files must live under TOPMEDIAI_UPLOAD_ROOT, giving the parameter a scoping constraint but no format, extension, or path syntax guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (one externally authorized audio file) with a clear scope qualifier (from TOPMEDIAI_UPLOAD_ROOT). The resource name cleanly separates it from upload_reference_image and upload_reference_media, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It establishes the preconditions for use (external authorization, files sourced from TOPMEDIAI_UPLOAD_ROOT, FFmpeg/FFprobe installed) and excludes synthesis ('No synthesis or automatic retry'), but never states when to pick this over upload_reference_media or how it relates to generate_sts. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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