create_voicememo_message

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), and the description aligns by describing a creation action without contradiction. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond annotations—no details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon creation (e.g., response format or side effects).

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key requirement. It's front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters or usage contexts.

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 creation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and input requirements but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output expectations, leaving gaps in context given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions 'transcript or link attachments,' which loosely maps to 'transcript' and 'links' parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It omits 'folder_id' and 'workspace_id,' leaving the baseline score at 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a VoiceMemo Message') and specifies required inputs ('transcript or link attachments'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_conversation_message' or 'create_direct_message', which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by stating 'you must provide a transcript or link attachments,' but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_conversation_message' or 'add_attachments_to_message.' There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for this tool.

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