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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, so behavior is largely on the description. It clarifies that this is a state-changing administrative tool but adds little beyond the schema's own enum notes (default wording, 'Copy of …', fallback scope) and does not mention permissions, side effects on existing agents, or reversibility of set_primary.

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: the first front-loads the full action list, the second handles sibling routing. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema and a simple flat 4-param schema, so the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke: the action set, required id semantics, and where to go for adjacent tasks. Minor gap is the absence of any note about effects on the currently primary agent.

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 100% and the enum descriptions already explain every action and requirement (ai_agent_id required except create, name/voice_id optional with defaults). The description adds nothing semantic beyond 'pick voices from list_voices', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (AI agent) and enumerates the exact actions matching the enum (create, duplicate, rename, set_voice, set_primary), so an agent can map intent to tool without opening the schema. It also distinguishes itself from two siblings by name.

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?

It explicitly routes away from this tool for wording/knowledge edits ('use update_settings (entity ai_agent)') and toward list_voices for voice selection. It gives no explicit 'when-not' for the listed actions, but the alternatives are named with their conditions.

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