voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and covers the most important traits: async job creation, the required polling pattern, incremental skip behavior, and a concurrency rejection guard. It does not elaborate on file mutations or edge cases, but the disclosed contract is enough for safe usage.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what it generates, how to get the result, and when it will refuse. No filler or redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists and the schema documents four of five parameters, the description covers the missing operational contract: immediate jobId, polling via job_status, and the single-running-job limit. The main gap is absence of sibling comparison, but for a job-launching tool this is sufficient for an agent to invoke and monitor it.

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 coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already documented and the description does not need to repeat them. It adds some relevance to the incremental behavior, hinting at what force might override, but force's exact semantics remain implicit. Thus it meets the baseline while adding only modest parameter-level value.

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 names a specific action and resource: generating per-scene TTS narration at scene granularity. 'Per-scene TTS' clearly separates it from sibling tools like record, captions, render, and compose, even though no sibling name is used. The parenthetical 'skips unchanged scenes' adds distinctive scope.

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 implies proper use: generate TTS narration, poll job_status, and avoid launching while another job is running because it rejects. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as record or render. This is adequate contextual guidance, but not strong routing guidance.

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