#it's also incredibly difficult to do but you'll find that authors at a high calibre rarely ever provide tonal description of their dialogue

[carmen-berzattos]

I keep seeing posts of people saying that not using words like growled, boomed etc as dialogue tags is bad writing advice and that these words are not meant to be taken literally, but poetically. That is all fine and good and true. But! The reason that you're often discouraged from relying on such descriptors isn't because the readers will take it literally, but to encourage writers to find more interesting ways of conveying emotions without these tags. The idea here is that you use precise description of external environemnt to convery mood, use internality as a way of hinting and hightening said mood, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, have your dialogue stand on its own that its tone and function in the character interaction is self-evident. Basically, you want to reach the point where adding the word "growled" feels like an overkill because the text already conveys the tone. And even then, I wouldn't necessarily say never use these descriptors, but I will say make them so sparse that the reader stands at attention when they're used. Because they know you mean business