speaker-create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it discloses nothing beyond the bare act of creation. It does not state whether the operation is additive, whether it overwrites existing speakers, or what side effects (e.g., adding to the active scene) occur. While it is not misleading, it fails to inform the agent about return values, permissions, or state changes.

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?

The description is extremely concise, using a single short sentence with no wasted words, which technically satisfies conciseness. However, the excessive brevity borders on under-specification, as it adds no more information than the tool name. It is structured clearly but sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

Given that this is a creation tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'speaker' represents in the domain, what happens upon success, or how 'name' and 'location' affect the result. Sibling tools like 'speaker-report' and 'speaker-set' suggest a CRUD context, but this tool's description fails to fit into that narrative, leaving the agent without enough information to use it effectively.

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 schema defines two parameters ('name' and 'location') with defaults, but the description provides zero explanation of their purpose, format, or relationship to the 'speaker object'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not mention either parameter at all. This leaves agents with no additional semantic understanding beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 'Create a speaker object' clearly specifies the action (create) and the resource (speaker object), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'speaker-list' and 'speaker-report'. While it is minimal, it unambiguously identifies the tool's function. However, it does not elaborate on what a 'speaker' is, relying on the tool name for context.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'speaker-set' or 'object-create'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The lack of any contextual or contrasting information means the agent gets no decision support.

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