text_to_dialogue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool creates a task and returns a task id, status, and output URLs, which implies an asynchronous workflow. However, it omits important behavioral details such as polling behavior, wait semantics, authentication requirements, or 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and object, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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?

Given the high complexity (8 parameters, async task creation) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover parameter semantics, usage scenarios, or operational nuances, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 only 25% and the description adds no parameter-level information. The 'dialogue' array, wait, stability, language_code, callback_url, timeout_ms, and poll_interval_ms are all unexplained, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct invocation based on the description alone.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('ElevenLabs task on RunAPI'), and clarifies the modality as text-to-dialogue. It distinguishes from speech_to_text but less clearly from sibling text_to_speech and text_to_sound, which is why it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_to_speech or text_to_sound. The description only states the tool's purpose without providing context or exclusions, so the agent receives no decision-making support beyond the tool's name.

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