guild_modify_current_voice_state

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

The description notes the tool returns `{ok, guild_id}` and that Discord returns 204 (no body). With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, this adds behavioral detail about the response. It does not mention permissions or prerequisites, but the annotation coverage reduces the need.

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 bolded Purpose, When to use, and Returns sections. It fits in a few lines with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, has an output schema, and annotations for safety/idempotency. The description covers the primary use cases and return format, making it sufficient for an AI agent to select and call it correctly.

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 description explains the key parameters by example: `request_to_speak_timestamp = now` for raising hand and `suppress = true` for stepping down, adding meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions. Since the schema covers 75% of parameters, the description adds useful semantic context.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'the bot's own voice state in a stage channel', with examples of raising hand and toggling suppress. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'guild_modify_user_voice_state' by scoping to the bot itself.

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 includes a 'When to use' section specifying the bot wants to raise its hand or step down. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other users, but the 'bot's own' wording implies the boundary. This provides clear context but no exclusions.

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