bvoiz_clone_voice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the sample must be a local file of 5-15 seconds in WAV/MP3/M4A/FLAC, but it does not state authentication needs, whether the operation is asynchronous, whether it consumes quota, or what kind of result is returned. This is minimally viable but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the key input constraints without redundant information. Every phrase contributes to helping an agent understand the tool.

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?

The description is adequate for a five-parameter creation tool with fully documented schema fields, and it adds important sample-file constraints. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about return behavior, authentication, and whether the operation is synchronous or job-based. Those omissions leave the definition only minimally 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 all five parameters are already documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the accepted audio formats and the 5-15 second duration constraint for audio_file_path. It does not add further meaning for name, gender, api_key, or ref_text, but the schema covers those adequately.

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 a specific verb and resource: creating a new cloned voice from a sample audio file. It adds meaningful constraints on the sample clip duration and supported formats. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as bvoiz_synthesize_speech or bvoiz_list_cloned_voices, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this when creating a new voice clone from a local sample. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like synthesize_speech or test_cloned_voice.

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