umouse_voice_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it defines the readiness condition (meeting confirmation plus first PCM frame), the state returned, the single-session constraint, client_request_id idempotency, and the absence of typing side effects. It omits failure behavior — what happens when no device is online, mic permission denial, or a readiness timeout.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return state, then sequencing, then constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing side-effect disclaimer and the idempotency note partially repeat what the schema already says.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned state (listening/sessionId) and where the actual transcript arrives (via umouse_voice_wait). For a stateful hardware session-start tool the lifecycle is covered; only error and permission paths are absent.

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 already documents device_id's SN/transient-identity rules, end_mode's enum meaning, prompt, and client_request_id. The description only restates idempotency for client_request_id, adding no new parameter semantics; baseline 3 is correct.

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 a specific verb and resource: starting one Agent voice Q&A session that captures audio via the device microphone in meeting mode and returns listening/sessionId. It also explicitly disclaims a plausible confusion — it only captures speech and returns final text as a tool result, never types into an input box.

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 the follow-up step by name (use umouse_voice_wait to await the final text) and lists the end conditions (VAD silence / finish button / cap), plus the one-session-at-a-time constraint. It does not state when to prefer umouse_audio_record over this tool, so the routing decision versus that sibling is left implicit.

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