clone_voice

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the consent gate, a three-sample cap, and that cost authorization is a two-part gate, but it never says what cloning produces (voice ID? preview?), whether the operation costs credits, or whether it can overwrite an existing voice. For a no-annotation mutation tool that is a meaningful gap, though the gating disclosures are above average.

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 filler, front-loading the action and then the prerequisites in the order an agent must satisfy them. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with a nested labels object, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the risky gates but leaves the agent guessing about side effects, cost, and result shape. Adequate to avoid a wrong call, not adequate to predict what a correct call yields.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It injects real meaning into three of them ('up to three sample files' → sample_paths, 'rights/consent confirmation' → rights_and_consent_confirmed, 'both paid authorization gates' → allow_paid and allow_unknown_cost), but name, labels, description, and remove_background_noise get nothing, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create an instant voice clone from local audio samples.' 'Instant' and 'local audio samples' distinguish it in kind from siblings like design_voice, create_voice_from_preview, and remix_voice, though none are named 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?

Lists hard prerequisites (consent confirmation, max three samples, both paid authorization gates), which is genuine when-can-I-call guidance. It never says when to prefer this over design_voice or create_voice_from_preview, nor what to do if the user lacks consent or paid authorization.

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