MiMo TTS - cloned voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the sample is Base64-encoded and re-sent on every call, the ~10 MB payload ceiling, and that output is written to a file and returned as a path. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and latency characteristics.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the cloning purpose and model name lead, followed by the payload constraint and the output behavior. Every sentence contributes something an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still states that a file path is returned, and the payload/format constraints are covered between description and schema. Sufficient for correct invocation; only secondary operational details (permissions, quotas) are absent.

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 in detail (format enum tradeoffs, output_path sandboxing and no-overwrite behavior, instructions usage). The description adds only the sample-size payload context, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 (synthesize speech) plus the distinctive resource constraint: replicating a voice from a local mp3/wav sample via the named `mimo-v2.5-tts-voiceclone` model. An agent can infer this differs from `text_to_speech` (no sample) and `design_voice_to_speech`, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the requirement of a local reference sample tells the agent this is the path when a voice must be cloned. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing guidance toward `text_to_speech` for plain synthesis or `design_voice_to_speech` for novel voices.

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