dub_audio

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses async execution and return of dubbing_id. Does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential costs, but given the nature of dubbing, it is sufficiently transparent for typical use.

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 description is clear and well-structured, with a usage pattern and parameter list. Slightly verbose but earns its place; could be trimmed without losing substance.

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?

Given 7 parameters, async behavior, and an output schema, the description covers the overall workflow and return value. Lacks details on error handling or dubbing_id format, but the output schema likely addresses that.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., target_lang, source_url, num_speakers) with default behaviors, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Start a dubbing job' and the resource 'translate audio/video into another language', distinguishing it from other tools like text_to_speech or speech_to_text.

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?

Explicitly mentions the asynchronous nature and directs the agent to poll with get_dubbing_status and then download_dubbed_audio. It also specifies input methods (local file or source URL). Could explicitly state when not to use, but context from siblings provides differentiation.

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