guild_modify_user_voice_state

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it explains that suppress means 'mute on stage', clarifies the audience/speaker role, and notes the return behavior (`{ok, user_id, channel_id}` and Discord's 204 no-body response). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description complements rather than repeats them.

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 extremely well-structured with bolded labels (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns). Every sentence adds value and there is zero redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the core purpose, usage constraints, exclusion criteria, and return behavior. Combined with the annotations and 100% schema coverage, it provides the agent with all necessary context to correctly select and invoke the tool. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small semantic clarification for `suppress` ('mute on stage') but does not deeply enhance the parameter explanations beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the expected 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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Update another user's voice state in a stage channel', and clarifies the suppress semantics as 'mute on stage'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling `guild_modify_current_voice_state` by specifying 'another user's' versus the bot's own state.

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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide explicit guidance, including the exact alternative tool for the agent's own voice state (`guild_modify_current_voice_state`). This directly addresses when the tool is appropriate and when it is not.

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