synthesize_speech

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: voice IDs are validated against the chosen model and never guessed. It says nothing about permissions, cost, sync vs. async execution (notable given the get_task sibling), or what artifact is produced, which is a large gap for an unannotated tool.

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 followed immediately by the one constraint the agent cannot infer. There is no filler to trim.

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?

A six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema is a complex surface, and the description addresses only two of the parameters. An agent would have to guess at output format, instruction semantics, and execution behavior before calling it.

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 0% across six parameters, yet the description only touches 'voice' and its dependency on 'model'. The meaning of text, format, instruction and sample_rate is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Synthesize speech'), which unambiguously identifies a text-to-speech operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the modality difference from generate_image, transcribe_audio and edit_video is self-evident, so an agent can still select it reliably.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as transcribe_audio or the get_task sibling. The second sentence is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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