Create a quick-cloned custom voice from a local WAV or MP3 audio sample

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses the API endpoint, file size limits, and that the tool creates a temporary cloned voice that should be deleted. It implies mutation but does not explicitly state side effects.

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 well-structured with a summary, API detail, usage, parameter list, and returns. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value, though some consolidation could improve conciseness.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description explains all parameters, return value structure, and usage flow. It lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites but is otherwise comprehensive.

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 compensates with detailed, structured parameter explanations including constraints, default values, and usage context for all five 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?

The description clearly states it creates a quick-cloned custom voice from a local WAV or MP3 sample, uses a specific API endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_cloned_voice and text_to_speech.

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 explains how to use the returned voice_id with other tools and when to delete the temporary voice, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_voices or get_voices.

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