assign_voices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses key behaviors: the operation runs in the background asynchronously, completion is detected through get_pipeline_status, and the voiceStyle field is not automatically populated. It also notes payment timing. It does not mention idempotency or overwrite behavior, but the critical operational traits are covered.

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 dense but front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by dependency, timing, and async behavior. Every clause contributes useful information, and there is no filler. The punctuation-heavy style reduces readability slightly but not enough to lower the score further.

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 one-parameter asynchronous tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what it does, what must happen before generate_tts, and how to know when it is done via get_pipeline_status. It does not state the immediate return value or what happens if invoked multiple times, but those are minor given the clear polling instructions.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter, episode_id. The description clarifies that 'this episode' is the target, which adds meaning beyond the bare integer schema. It does not explain where to obtain episode_id or any formatting expectations, but the schema already provides the basic constraint.

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 states a specific action: assign voices to all characters in the current episode, with clear selection criteria (gender, personality, age, role, project language). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_tts by explaining that this step is a prerequisite for TTS.

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 explicitly warns that voiceStyle is not auto-filled and that generate_tts will lack voices if assignment is skipped, which tells the agent when this tool is required. It also gives sequencing: poll get_pipeline_status until assign_voices=done, then call generate_tts. It does not explicitly compare against per-character voice assignment siblings, but the all-characters scope is clear.

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