clone_voice

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, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the automatic transcription behavior, authorization/legal requirements, sample quality constraints, billing implications (fixed price per voice), and downstream usage dependencies. This is far beyond what the schema alone provides and gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and prerequisites.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action and return value, then layers in prerequisites, constraints, pricing, and downstream usage. The use of bold and a warning marker improves scannability without adding redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what input is acceptable, what processing will happen, what it costs, what it returns, and how to use it with related tools afterward. No critical operational detail seems missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, notes, sample_url, and sample_file_path, including the 'one of' relationship. The description adds useful context about sample content and authorization, but it does not add much parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('clone a voice from an authorized audio sample'), the returned resource ('voice_id'), and explicitly notes that no prior character or drama is needed. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by naming speak_with_voice and set_character_voice as the next downstream steps. This makes the tool's purpose clear and separable from its siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: it can be used without an existing character or drama, after cloning you can use speak_with_voice for auditioning/downloading, and set_character_voice is only needed when dubbing to film. It also gives sample requirements and cautions (authorization, ~10 seconds clear voice, no music/silence). This fully routes the agent through the intended workflow.

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