add_robot_vocal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses side effects (talkbox adds one audio track after the melody's; vocoder builds three tracks), the return value (a measured clarity score alone and in the mix), and instructs the agent to act on that score rather than guess. This is substantial context beyond any structured field.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and every paragraph carries real information (mode behavior, sparsity rules, return value). However, the talkbox/vocoder mechanics are partly restated from the schema's style field, and the three-paragraph length is heavier than strictly needed, leaving minor redundancy.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what's needed: side effects on track structure, which item_id input to supply, how lyrics map to notes, sparsity constraints, and the clarity-score return. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters, including the style enum and lyrics syntax. The description reinforces the talkbox/vocoder distinction and lyric sparsity but adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Makes a synth sing words') and specifies exactly what is manipulated: the TTS voice over a melody item's notes. It further distinguishes the two output modes (talkbox = one shaped audio track; vocoder = three tracks with ReaVocode), letting an agent tell this apart from siblings like add_vocal_chain or chop_vocal without opening the 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?

It gives strong when-to-use guidance: robot vocals only work when sparse ('short hook of a few words, repeated... at most one syllable per beat'), and explicitly warns that dense/fast verses 'turn to mush'. It also directs the agent to reference list_speech_voices for voices and to act on the clarity score. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., add_vocal_chain) to route away from, so a 4 rather than 5.

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