voiceover

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

Excellent disclosure beyond annotations: states output format (48 kHz mono, -14 LUFS), file naming convention (-vN), where it appears (Assets tab), cost model (ElevenLabs characters), and the 'one per ask' limitation. Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so this description adds substantial operational context.

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?

Two sentences, highly front-loaded with the core action, defaults, output, and cost, then a third short sentence for the critical usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Complete for a generation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It covers input defaults, output path/format, UI location, cost model, and a per-request constraint, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the default for text ('the session's script.md') and voice ('The user's default voice, usually a clone'), which enriches understanding, but does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already documents for all 9 parameters.

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 and resource ('Make a voice-over with ElevenLabs'), names the engine, and distinguishes itself from siblings like voices, design_voice, change_voice, and clean_voice by describing generation of audio rather than management.

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?

Provides clear implied context: reads default script.md, writes a numbered take, and warns 'one voice-over per ask' as a rate/usage constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against alternative tools like replicate, though the purpose is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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