voice_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the mutating action by stating it types at the cursor position, but it lacks context about prerequisites like microphone access, failure modes, or side effects beyond typing. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, tightly crafted sentence that efficiently communicates the entire workflow. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant wording.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values and operational requirements. It does not mention what the tool returns after typing, nor does it address active-window prerequisites. It covers the main purpose but leaves gaps in resource/return value details.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (duration and language), with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning, adhering to the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Record audio, transcribe to text, and type it at the cursor position in the active window.' This clearly differentiates from siblings like voice_transcribe (which only transcribes) and voice_status (which likely reports status).

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 implies usage for dictation-to-text insertion but does not explicitly state when to choose this over voice_transcribe or any exclusions. It provides context for what the tool does but not guidance on alternatives, so it stays at the 'implied usage' level.

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