render_long_voiceover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so admirably. It explains the splitting algorithm (paragraph → sentence → word, never mid-word), the fallback for short scripts, and the output behavior (stream-copy concatenation to output_path when FFmpeg and mp3 are available, otherwise returning segment paths). This openly conveys the tool's decision logic and expected results.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence and then provides two specific, high-value behavioral details in the second. Every sentence contributes meaning without repetition or filler, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (splitting, conditional concatenation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior thoroughly. It explains the main edge case (FFmpeg absent) and the segmentation rule. It does not address overwrite semantics or what happens when output_path is empty, but these are secondary and the output schema may provide return details. Overall, it is nearly complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 must compensate. It does mention output_path and response_format indirectly (through the FFmpeg/mp3 condition) and implies max_chars via segmentation, but it does not explicitly define any parameter. Voice and overwrite are left entirely to the schema, which carries no descriptions. The description adds some meaning but is incomplete for a tool with six parameters.

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 verb 'render' and the resource 'a long script', and immediately explains the core mechanism (splitting into segments and rendering each). It differentiates from the sibling render_voiceover by targeting long scripts and explicitly describing the segmentation boundaries, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides strong context: it mentions that short scripts fall through to a single request, which implies this tool is for long scripts and handles both cases. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling render_voiceover as the alternative for short scripts, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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