add_avatar_to_meeting

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses creating an ephemeral session, deploying a Recall bot, and the avatar's ability to hear and respond. It mentions defaults for bot_name, llm_id, and avatar_model. It does not mention costs, rate limits, permissions, or session duration, but is fairly transparent.

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 and well-structured, with a short summary followed by a clear Args list and a returns line. Every sentence is useful, and the information is front-loaded.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, 4 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter details, and behavior. However, it could mention lifecycle or how to remove the avatar (e.g., using sibling tool), which would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining all seven parameters in the Args section, including meeting_url with example, avatar_id and voice_id with search tips, system_prompt for behavior, and defaults for optional parameters. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.

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 'Add an Anam avatar to a video meeting (Zoom, Google Meet, Teams)', specifying the verb (add), resource (Anam avatar), and context (video meeting). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_avatar_from_meeting' and other creation tools.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining that the tool creates an ephemeral session and deploys a Recall bot that shows the avatar as camera feed. It mentions using 'search_avatars' and 'search_voices' to find IDs, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide exclusions.

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