create_actor

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 the output (a local path to the audition clip) and the consequential side effect of force=true (previously generated lines no longer match). It stops short of stating what happens if name already exists without force (error vs. reuse), so one behavioral gap remains.

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?

The purpose sentence and the parameter block are front-loaded and tight. The middle 'why' paragraph justifies the tool's existence but spends several sentences on 125 Hz/242 Hz/5 Hz measurements, which is more evidence than an agent needs to make a selection decision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose (the description still notes the audition path usefully). For a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description supplies the operational context needed to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely – and it does. All five parameters are explained: name with charset/length constraints, voice with a concrete English example and content guidance, sample_text with its default, seed, and force with its destructive consequence.

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 ('给一个角色铸声(定妆)' – mint/cast a voice for a character) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling it feeds into ('之后用 actor_tts 让他说任意台词'). An agent can tell this apart from actor_tts, import_actor, or generate_speech without opening a 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?

Clearly states when to use it: before actor_tts, to lock a stable timbre, and force=true to re-cast. It gives a clear workflow position but doesn't name alternative casting routes (import_actor, create_character) or say when those would be preferred instead.

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