elevenlabs_generate_speech

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the important side-effect chain: an external ElevenLabs call, a media import, and an optional timeline placement. It omits the prerequisites an agent would want – API key/voice availability, cost or rate limits, and whether the placement is destructive to existing track content.

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 front-loaded sentence that sequences the three effects in order of execution. Efficient, though the brevity costs it the parameter and prerequisite detail the tool needs.

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 9-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow shape but not the return value (project item? clip? newly imported file?) nor the tuning parameters. An agent can start the call but will be guessing about defaults and results.

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 only 44% (9 params, 4 described), so the description needs to compensate. Instead it says nothing about text, speed, style, stability, or similarityBoost – the agent gets no meaning beyond the field names, and the voiceId cross-reference to elevenlabs_list_voices lives only in the schema.

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 chain (generate, import, optionally place) and the resource (voiceover, audio track), which is far more informative than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling elevenlabs_voice_lines, which an agent could reasonably confuse with single-voiceover generation.

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 phrase 'optionally place it on an audio track' implicitly explains when to supply start/audioTrack versus importing only. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over elevenlabs_voice_lines (multi-line dialogue) or what prerequisite voices/API access are needed.

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