prepare_voice_clone

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure: it notes the tool is experimental (#20), the two-phase process (submit + callback), and caveats about the completion step not being verified end-to-end and requiring a real callback URL. This is thorough for a tool with no annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the tool's identity (experimental, step 1, free) and efficiently covers the process, warnings, and limitations.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the workflow and key risks adequately. It could detail error scenarios or return values, but for a step-1 tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use it 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 coverage is 83%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining the polling behavior for 'wait' and 'max_wait_seconds', and the callback server expectation. It does not detail each parameter but provides workflow context that aids usage.

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 it is 'STEP 1 of Suno custom-voice cloning' and describes the action: submit a clean vocal sample, poll to wait_validating, and trigger a callback. It distinguishes from its sibling 'create_voice_clone' which is the next step.

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?

It explicitly marks the tool as step 1 and directs to use 'create_voice_clone' afterward. It includes a warning about only cloning owned voices. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools for other cases.

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