actor_tts

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the consistency guarantee, text truncation at 200 chars (~45s), the actor-not-found error behavior routing to create_actor, and the return format (24 kHz mono WAV path). It does not mention latency, cost, or concurrency, which keeps 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the key routing decision, then parameters and return value in clearly delineated sections. Every line earns its place; no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional (though provided). With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description successfully covers purpose, routing, all params, error behavior, and output format. Minor gaps around speaking_rate/seed ranges and operational limits prevent a 5.

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 0%, so the description must document params and it does all four: actor (name from create_actor), text (200-char cap, truncation), speaking_rate (rate multiplier), seed (random seed). The last two are thin — no valid ranges — so it compensates well but not exhaustively.

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 ('make an already-cast actor speak a line') and a distinctive property (timbre consistency across every line). It explicitly names and contrasts with the sibling generate_speech, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('game NPC dialogue'), when-not ('don't use generate_speech — its timbre drifts per line'), and a prerequisite path (if the actor doesn't exist, it tells you to create_actor first). Alternatives and conditions are fully specified.

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