remix_voice

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

With no annotations provided, the description does real work by disclosing that preview generation may consume credits and depends on two paid-operation gates — genuinely useful cost/safety context. However, it says nothing about what the remix actually alters relative to the source voice, whether results are persisted or ephemeral, or how streaming/seed behaviors matter, leaving substantial behavioral burden on the schema alone.

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, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the cost caveat second. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs reordering.

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 15-parameter, unannotated, output-schema-less tool, two sentences are not enough — the description neither maps the many generation-shaping parameters nor describes what the tool returns (preview URLs, files, session IDs). Only the cost/gating dimension is adequately covered.

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 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Its phrase 'both paid-operation gates' usefully hints that allow_paid and allow_unknown_cost must both be set, but seed, text, loudness, guidance_scale, prompt_strength, voice_description, output_format, filename_prefix, stream_previews, auto_generate_text, and the two remixing_session IDs are left entirely unexplained beyond their types and defaults.

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 concrete verb and result ('Create new voice previews') scoped to a saved voice, which resolves the ambiguity of the tool name 'remix_voice'. It does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as design_voice, create_voice_from_preview, or get_voice_preview, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no explicit routing signal.

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?

It establishes a precondition (the voice must already exist as a saved voice) and flags the paid-operation gates, which implies when the tool can run. It never says when to choose this over create_voice_from_preview or design_voice, nor when to avoid it, so usage is only implied.

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