add_library_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real side effect/cost constraint ('Uses a voice slot'), which is more than most mutation tools offer. However, it says nothing about subscription requirements, reversibility/removal, duplicate handling, or failure when slots are exhausted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the trailing slot-usage note is compact. 'so it can be used for speech' is mildly redundant with the verb 'add ... to your own voices' but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the slot cost, but omits prerequisite/auth context (a sibling named check_subscription hints at entitlement constraints) and return/error behavior. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 a middling 67% — 'name' and 'public_owner_id' are documented, but 'voice_id' is bare in the schema and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The description therefore fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 (add) plus resource (shared-library voice) and the outcome (usable for speech), which is clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_voice_library (the source of library voices) but does not name or explicitly contrast that sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative in the description. The only routing hint ('public_owner_id from search_voice_library') lives in the schema, not the description, so usage is only implied by context.

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