tool_delete_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and directly discloses the key behavioral traits: irreversibility, removal of the reference audio file, and resulting failures in list_voices and synthesize_speech. This is strong transparency for a destructive 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action and irreversibility come first, followed by use cases and then downstream effects. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is deleted, when to use it, and what changes afterward. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the voice_name parameter as IRREVERSIBLE and states that it removes profile plus reference audio. The description adds downstream consequence context but does not need to explain parameter format.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a voice profile and its reference audio file.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by stating the destructive action and permanent consequences.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'free disk space or clean up test voices.' It does not name alternatives because no sibling deletion tool exists, and it clearly warns about the effects after deletion.

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