register_voiceprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does reveal that 'The voiceprint will be saved and used to identify this person in future meeting transcriptions,' which is important side-effect information. However, it omits potential failure modes, the effect of duplicate registrations, or any prerequisites, leaving gaps for a write operation.

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 succinct and well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose, adds a vital audio requirement, and then organizes parameter details in a clear Args list. No redundant or vague sentences; every line provides useful information.

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 tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, the audio input characteristics, and the meaning of each parameter. Minor omissions like file format validation or error conditions are acceptable given the simplicity. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so with an Args section explaining both parameters: 'name: The person's name (will be used as label in transcriptions)' and 'file_path: Absolute path to an audio file with the person's voice.' This adds meaningful context beyond mere strings, but doesn't fully elaborate format or validation.

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 tool's function: 'Register a person's voiceprint from an audio file.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe_audio or knowledge management tools. The scope is well-defined.

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 explicit context on how to use the tool, such as 'The audio should contain only one person speaking clearly for 20-30 seconds.' This gives clear guidance for proper usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, keying it just below a 5.

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