voicebox_regenerate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool creates a new version (non-destructive mutation) but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the main action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 tool has a single parameter, an output schema (handling return values), and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for understanding the tool's effect. It could mention that the operation is non-destructive, but the creation of a new version implies 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description ('The generation ID to regenerate.'); it merely restates the parameter's role without extra context.

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 regenerates speech with a new random seed and creates a new version with different voice characteristics. The verb 'regenerate' combined with 'speech' and 'new random seed' provides a specific action and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like voicebox_generate and voicebox_retry_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 implies usage for creating variations of existing generations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., regenerating with same seed, retrying, or generating new). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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