set_voice_index_ratio

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description is consistent with that (idempotent 'set', no destruction). It adds one behavioral constraint (the 0-only case without an index file) but does not explain persistence, latency, what the ratio actually affects, or side effects on voice behavior. Adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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 front-loaded clause carries the action and its constraint with zero filler. Every element earns its place and the key rule is stated before the edge case.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it does supply the value constraint. But it gives no context on what the retrieval ratio governs, why it is bounded at 1, or how it interacts with the voice/index subsystem, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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% and the single 'ratio' parameter has no schema-level documentation, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by stating the valid range (0–1) and a conditional validity rule tied to the presence of an index file, which is genuine semantic content. It still doesn't define the unit or the underlying meaning of the ratio, so it is good but not complete.

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 (set) and resource (the current character retrieval ratio) with a clear value range of 0–1, so an agent knows exactly what the tool configures. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, but the siblings cover unrelated operations (pitch, bypass, model selection), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Provides a real conditional rule — when no index file exists only 0 is permitted — which is meaningful when-to-use guidance for the value. However it offers no comparison to alternatives and no broader context on when this setting should be changed versus left alone, leaving usage largely implied.

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