speech_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: the style affects the pre-TTS composition of summaries rather than the voice itself, and the empty-string sentinel clears state. It omits persistence scope (session vs global), whether setting is idempotent, and any auth requirements.

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?

Three short blocks: the core behavior plus its negative boundary first, then concrete examples, then the control semantics. Every sentence earns its place and the most important clarifier (not the TTS voice) 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, examples, and state-clear/view behavior well enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is scope/persistence of the setting and what the view mode returns, which are minor for this complexity.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same clear/view semantics in prose and adds only the illustrative examples, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Set a speaking style or persona') and immediately bounds the effect: it shapes how spoken text is composed, not the TTS voice. That boundary functionally separates it from the voice-related siblings (speak, list_voices, configure_speech) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 explicit mode-selection instructions: pass a style to set it, pass an empty string to clear it, omit the argument to view the current style. This is clear context for using the tool, though it never states when to reach for this tool rather than configure_speech, nor any prerequisite conditions.

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