delete_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the operational scope (user's own cloned voice library), the protection of public voices, and that the operation is free. However, it does not explicitly state that deletion is permanent or describe downstream effects, such as impact on character voice assignments.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys action, scope, an exclusion, and cost information without redundancy. Every clause adds relevant information for correct tool invocation.

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 deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, whose voice library is affected, and what cannot be deleted. The lack of explicit return-format or error-handling details is a minor gap for such a simple destructive operation.

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 schema already documents voice_id with a format example ('lib:12'), achieving full coverage. The description adds semantic value by implying that the ID must reference one of the user's cloned voices rather than a platform public voice, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb '删除' with an explicit resource: '我音色库里的一个克隆音色' (a cloned voice in my voice library). It also clarifies that platform public voices are not deletable, which distinguishes this from voice-generation and voice-listing 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 clearly communicates when-not to use the tool: it cannot be applied to platform public voices, so the agent understands only user-owned cloned voices are valid targets. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_voices or clone_voice, but the ownership boundary provides clear guidance.

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