create_voice_from_preview

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: this is a mutating save, it needs an explicit confirm flag, and it is gated by two cost-related switches. It does not say whether the preview is consumed or remains available, whether repeated saves duplicate a voice, or what happens on gate failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the gating conditions. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 a six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the highest-risk aspect (paid-operation confirmation) but leaves parameter meaning and return behavior unexplained. An agent could get the gating right yet still fail the minLength rules on voice_description.

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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it names confirm_save and implies the two gates but never explains generated_voice_id, voice_name, or the 20-1000 character constraint on voice_description. It is unclear from the description which two switches constitute 'both paid-operation gates'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save one previously generated preview as a reusable voice,' which clearly separates it from siblings that create voices from other sources (design_voice, clone_voice, remix_voice) by pinning the input to an existing preview. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied through the source object rather than stated.

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?

Prerequisites are given ('previously generated preview', confirm_save=true, both paid-operation gates), which tells an agent the conditions under which the call will succeed. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative path (e.g., cloning from audio instead of a preview), so the routing information is only partial.

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