update_voice_settings

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation. It does not say whether the settings object replaces existing settings wholesale or merges (relevant given additionalProperties: false and no optional fields), whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy of substance, but 'using the documented voice settings endpoint' is filler that points at documentation it does not identify, consuming words without conveying 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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested settings object with zero described fields, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know what the call changes, how partial versus full updates behave, or what happens on failure.

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% and the settings parameter is a nested object with five undocumented sub-fields (speed, style, stability, similarity_boost, use_speaker_boost). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it repeats the word 'settings' without explaining any field, unit, or effect.

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 verb 'Update' plus the resource 'stored settings for one voice' sets a clear operation, but it is a near-restatement of the tool name and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as get_voice_settings or change_voice. The trailing phrase 'using the documented voice settings endpoint' adds no discriminating information.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_voice_settings (read) or change_voice, no prerequisites, and no note about whether a voice must already exist. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name.

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