generate_voiceover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the prerequisite of a provider API key and that it returns an MP3 path, which are important operational details. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., cost, rate limits, asynchronous behavior, or error conditions) beyond creation. This is adequate but not rich.

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: three short statements covering action, prerequisite, and output. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then includes necessary context. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more compact by merging sentences. Still, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 provides the essential context: what it does, what is required (API key), and what it returns (MP3 path). The schema covers parameter details, so the description does not need to explain them. Error handling or specific provider behaviors are not covered, but given the moderate complexity, the description is nearly sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, each with descriptive comments. The description itself adds very little beyond what the schema already states—it repeats the provider names and mentions text, but does not introduce any new semantic meaning or relationships. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: generating a voiceover from text using AI text-to-speech, and specifically names the providers (fal, OpenAI, ElevenLabs). This distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like generate_music or generate_video, which produce different content types. The verb 'generate' and resource 'voiceover' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used when a voiceover is needed from text, making the context evident. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude other scenarios (e.g., when to use generate_music instead). Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer correct usage.

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