speak

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, so the safety bar is partly covered; the description adds genuinely useful context: the external ElevenLabs dependency, the returned file path, and the caveat that script-sent audio renders as an attachment rather than a native voice-note bubble.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence carries a non-obvious rendering caveat rather than filler. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return value (audio file path). Combined with annotations covering the mutation profile and schema covering the send parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 75%, with `to`, `confirm` and `voiceId` fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the text-to-speech and optional-send semantics, adding little beyond structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: turns text into speech via ElevenLabs and returns the audio file path, with optional delivery. It is clearly distinct from the reverse-direction sibling transcribe_voice_note, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 optional-send behavior is implied by 'optionally sending it' and the schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus send_file/send_message. Usage must largely be inferred.

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