bvoiz_delete_cloned_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about irreversibility, whether existing audio/jobs referencing the voice are affected, permission or API-key requirements, or the response. For a destructive delete operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given that this is a destructive 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?

For a destructive, irreversible-sounding delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state consequences, preconditions, and roughly what is returned. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it with confidence.

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%: both api_key ('BVoiz API Key') and clone_id ('Mã Clone ID cần xóa') are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about where clone_id comes from or how to obtain it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Xóa' – delete) and a specific resource ('một giọng nói nhân bản' – a cloned voice) scoped to the BVoiz account. An agent can immediately tell this is not a read or synthesis operation. It doesn't, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like bvoiz_list_cloned_voices or bvoiz_test_cloned_voice beyond the verb.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing a clone_id from bvoiz_list_cloned_voices), and no note on when deletion is inappropriate. The single sentence describes only what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer all usage context.

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