Create an audio clip (speech from text, or upload a recording)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (mutating, open-world, non-idempotent), so the description's job is to add operational context, which it does: it discloses the async nature, that the returned id is only usable once wait_for_job(model='audio-clip') reports done, and the typical latency. It does not mention auth requirements or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the input constraint is stated before the async/returns detail. Slightly information-heavy for one paragraph but each clause carries a distinct constraint or pointer, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (clip id) and the completion protocol (poll wait_for_job with the audio-clip model). Together with the covered parameters and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool 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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it states that exactly one voice must accompany text, that the voice sources are mutually exclusive alternatives to file_path, and where each id comes from. This mutual-exclusivity constraint is not expressed in the schema.

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+resource and explicitly frames the two modes: synthesize speech from text with a voice, or upload a local recording via file_path. The opening line ('The soundtrack every video model takes as input') immediately situates it relative to the video-creation siblings.

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?

Gives concrete selection rules between the two modes (text + exactly one voice, or file_path), names the prerequisite tools (voice_id from list_voices, voice_user_id for cloned voices), and routes longer scripts to multiple clips composed into create_craftstory2_video. Explicit when-to-use with named alternatives.

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