create_recado

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the audio is generated instantly, bypasses HITL approval, includes a vinheta/chime at the start, and returns a JSON payload with a direct MP3 download/reproduction URL. It does not discuss broader side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: main function, use cases, behavioral note, parameters, and return format each appear once without filler. Every sentence contributes to tool selection or correct invocation.

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 two-parameter generator with an output schema, this is nearly complete: it covers purpose, when to use it, parameter semantics, output behavior, and the distinctive chime trait. The main missing context is that valid voice IDs likely come from the sibling list_voices tool, and there is no explicit statement about what happens when text exceeds 300 characters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that text is the message to be synthesized and by adding the critical 300-character maximum. Voice_id is described as the optional voice ID, though it could be improved by pointing to the sibling list_voices tool for valid values and explaining default voice behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Gera um áudio instantâneo de recado curto' and immediately clarifies it is a fast-lane TTS flow without HITL approval. This clearly differentiates it from the approval-oriented sibling flow and from create_campaign, so an agent can identify when to select this tool.

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 gives explicit use-case context such as quick store announcements, parking notices, customer calls, and operational messages. It also notes the no-approval fast lane, which strongly implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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