text_to_sound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for transparency. It discloses the return value (task ID, status, output URLs) and implies an asynchronous task creation, but it doesn't explain that the task may need polling (despite a 'wait' parameter in the schema), how authentication works, or potential side effects. The description is not misleading but is sparse.

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, with the action verb front-loaded. It is concise and contains no unnecessary information, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 moderate complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't mention the asynchronous task model, the need for polling or using get_task, the sound-effect model, or parameter semantics. It provides only the core action and return format, which is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied contexts.

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 20% (wait and model). The description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond the name 'text to sound,' leaving the other 8 parameters undocumented in both the schema and description. This is a significant gap for a tool with 10 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 the tool creates an ElevenLabs text-to-sound task on RunAPI and returns a task ID, status, and output URLs. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('ElevenLabs task on RunAPI (text to sound)'), which distinguishes it from siblings like text_to_speech and text_to_dialogue, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text_to_speech or text_to_dialogue. It simply states what the tool does without any context on appropriate use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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