Upload a local media file to the ElevenLabs Assets API after confirming rights and authorizing unknown costs, enabling controlled asset submission when pricing is not estimated.
Upload a local media file to the ElevenLabs Assets API. Requires rights confirmation and unknown-cost authorization because asset pricing is not estimated here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| allow_paid | No | ||
| input_path | Yes | ||
| rights_confirmed | No | ||
| allow_unknown_cost | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that asset pricing is not estimated here and that uploads are gated on rights and cost authorization — real behavioral context. It omits what happens when the flags are false, whether existing assets are overwritten, supported media types, or size limits.
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, zero filler, purpose front-loaded ahead of the gating caveat. Slightly compressed — the causal clause 'because asset pricing is not estimated here' could be tightened, but nothing is wasted.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the cost/rights gating story. It says nothing about return values (asset ID?), failure modes, or the three undocumented parameters, so an agent still cannot call it confidently without guessing.
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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the intent behind rights_confirmed and allow_unknown_cost but leaves input_path, name, and especially allow_paid (a paid-spend consent flag) completely unaddressed, and does not clarify how allow_paid differs from allow_unknown_cost.
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: 'Upload a local media file to the ElevenLabs Assets API.' The 'local media file' + 'Assets API' framing distinguishes it from siblings like upload_music, generate_image, or generate_video, though no sibling is 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?
The description implies when the tool is usable by flagging two preconditions (rights confirmation, unknown-cost authorization), but it never states when to choose this over upload_music or list_assets, nor what to do if pricing must be known (e.g., call estimate_cost first). Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.