voicebox_import_generation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like file format support, error handling, whether the operation is synchronous, or if it modifies the original file. Limited disclosure beyond the core function.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable context. Perfectly concise for the complexity.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, with many sibling tools and no annotations, it could be improved by specifying prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility) or supported formats. Adequate but has gaps.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline. No additional constraints or examples are given.

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 clearly states the tool imports an existing audio file as a generation in history, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like voicebox_import_history and voicebox_import_profile by focusing on audio file import for generation.

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 mentions use cases (story editing, effects, re-generation) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. It implies usage context but lacks exclusions or comparison to other import tools.

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