discord_voice

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

Annotations only declare it is not read-only and is open-world; the description adds real behavioral context: the FFmpeg/Opus/DAVE encryption stack, the existence of a 'dependencies' action to verify prerequisites, and a scope boundary (no recording/transcription). It omits permission requirements (Connect/Speak) and what happens to queued audio on leave or stop, so it's strong but not complete.

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?

Four tight sentences: capability first, action list second, sibling routing third, scope boundary last. Nothing is redundant, though the FFmpeg/Opus/DAVE stack name-drop is borderline detail that could be shortened.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema, multi-action tool, the description covers purpose and alternatives well but leaves the parameter-to-action mapping (which params matter for which action) and the shape of 'status'/'dependencies' results unspecified. Adequate to start, but gaps force schema inspection or trial and error.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at semantics: the action list is inferable, enqueue is implied by 'play/queue', and self_deaf gets one hint for the soundboard path. file, volume, guild_id and channel_id receive no explanation at all, and the enum values are never mapped to required parameters.

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 specific verbs and resources: join/leave a voice or stage channel, plus play/queue local audio, with the action list spelled out. It also names the sibling it does not replace (discord_soundboard.play) and disclaims recording/transcription, so an agent can distinguish it from discord_stage, discord_soundboard and the rest without opening the schema.

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 a concrete routing rule for the soundboard case (join with self_deaf=false, then call discord_soundboard.play) and an explicit when-not (does not record or transcribe). It stops short of saying when to prefer join+play over a separate stage flow, or when the 'dependencies' action should be checked first.

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