setup_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does meaningfully disclose behavior by stating the process is 'deterministic' and uses 'No LLM', which tells the agent results are reproducible and non-generative. It omits other important behavior: whether the resulting guide is persisted or returned, whether it overwrites an existing voice guide, and whether it fails on bad input.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the produced artifact and followed by the input recipe. Every phrase earns its place, including the terse 'No LLM' qualifier that conveys a non-obvious behavioral property.

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 setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essential inputs and the determinism guarantee but leaves notable gaps: what exactly is produced and where it lives, whether it replaces prior voice configuration, and any constraints on sample length or adjective count.

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%, so the description must compensate and does so only partly. It clarifies that 'samples' are pasted writing samples (real prose, not IDs or URLs) and restates the 1-3 range already encoded as minItems/maxItems in the schema, but it never explains what the 'adjectives' strings should look like or how many are expected.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Build a deterministic voice guide'. It also names the two inputs (adjectives, pasted writing samples) and the 1-3 sample bound, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling setup tools such as setup_brand, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is clearly a one-time setup action that produces a voice guide from supplied material, which an agent can infer from 'Build' plus the sample inputs. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus setup_brand or other setup_* tools, no preconditions (e.g. must existing setup be done first), and no exclusions.

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