select_voice_model

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior; the description usefully adds that the selection state is read back and that warm-up success is not guaranteed. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and the precondition, then lists the two non-guarantees. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the precondition and behavioral limits well. The only real gap is the meaning of 'slot'.

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?

The single 'slot' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what a slot is (index into the imported model list? a fixed channel?). With one undocumented required parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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+resource: selecting an already-imported RVC model, with the added constraint that the engine audio must be paused. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_voice_models and start_voice_audio, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('while engine audio is paused') and negative scope ('does not start audio', 'does not guarantee warm-up success'), which steers the agent away from expecting playback. It stops short of naming which sibling to call instead for those goals.

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