text_to_speech

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses auto-enhancement of text with pauses and breathing, which is valuable. However, it does not mention output location, return values, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core function, followed by auto-enhancement and preset guidance. Each sentence contributes, though the preset list partially repeats the schema's enum description.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and auto-enhancement behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus sibling batch/preview tools and does not clarify the return value or output file handling, making it adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema already documents all 8 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal new parameter semantics. The preset examples are duplicated in the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 converts text to speech using ElevenLabs and saves as MP3, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling batch_text_to_speech or preview_text_enhancement, so it misses some differentiation.

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 provides preset usage guidance (natural for default, conversational for YouTube/demos, narration for tutorials, dramatic for trailers), which helps with parameter selection. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus batch_text_to_speech or preview_text_enhancement, leaving the tool-selection context implicit.

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