treeflow_update_voice_config

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states that parameters are updated; it does not reveal side effects, whether the update is partial or full, permission requirements, or impact on active sessions. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral 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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then compactly lists the key updatable aspects. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the schema.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify update semantics (partial vs. full), the target requirement (tree_id), and what the response contains. It does none of this, leaving an agent to infer critical invocation behavior.

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 input schema already describes all 8 properties at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful high-level summary that maps to the parameters, but it does not provide any extra detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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 uses a specific verb ('Actualiza' = updates) and a clear resource ('parámetros de voz del bot'), and enumerates the exact capabilities (STT/TTS toggles, voice, language, speed). This makes it immediately distinguishable from the many CRUD siblings and complements the read-only treeflow_get_voice_config.

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?

The usage context is implied: use this tool when voice parameters need to be modified. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it reference the alternative get_voice_config for reading current settings. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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