Venice Voice Clone / List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'list' returns a static catalog (not a dynamic endpoint), and 'create' uses multipart upload to a specific endpoint. It mentions auth methods but does not discuss side effects, rate limits, or destruction behavior.

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 four sentences, each efficiently conveying essential information. The first sentence sets the purpose, followed by clear explanations of each action. No fluff or redundancy.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main actions and protocol well. It lacks response format details or error handling, but the core functionality is adequately described.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds context: model is required for create, sample_url is for create, and that create uses 'multipart upload to /v1/audio/voices'. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, justifying a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states it 'Manage TTS voices' with two distinct actions: 'list' returns the static catalog of built-in voices grouped by TTS model, and 'create' clones a voice from a sample audio URL. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like venice_tts.

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 indicates when to use each action: 'list' for viewing built-in voices, 'create' for cloning. It also mentions auth methods (x402, API key). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like venice_tts.

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