create_omni_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the created voice is persistent/reusable and returns a kieAudioId handle, which is the key output fact given there is no output schema. It says nothing about cost, credit consumption, provisioning latency, or whether the creation is reversible — notable omissions for a mutation tool whose own schema exposes max_credits/estimate_only guardrails.

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 tight sentences with zero padding; the core action leads and the return-value/downstream-use fact follows immediately. The only removable token is the 'NEW —' marker, which is minor.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description does cover the most important missing structured data (the kieAudioId return handle) and its consumer. It remains thin on billing/cost behavior and asynchronous execution, leaving the agent without the context it would need to call this responsibly alongside estimate_only and max_credits.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including the 30-value audio_id enum and the voice_description/example_dialogue distinction. The description adds no further parameter semantics (e.g. how voice_description shapes the preset), 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Create a reusable voice character for Gemini Omni video generation' — and names the artifact it produces (kieAudioId) plus its downstream consumer. It scopes itself to Gemini Omni, which partly separates it from create_voice_clone and create_omni_character, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 implies when to use it by naming the downstream call site ('for use in generate_video audio_ids'), which tells the agent this belongs to the Omni video pipeline. However it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and never contrasts with the closely related create_voice_clone, prepare_voice_clone, or create_omni_character tools.

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