voice_bridge_say

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic STT muting during injection, coverage by session deposit, and the two modes. It does not cover potential errors or side effects, but the main behaviors are clear.

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 very concise: five sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, then the two modes, then the STT muting, then payment. Every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains modes, muting, and cost. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling (e.g., invalid session) but is adequate for an agent.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds significant context by explaining the two modes and how parameters relate (e.g., text vs audioBase64+encoding), which goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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?

Description starts with a clear action verb ('Inject audio into an open Voice Bridge call') and specifies two distinct modes (TTS or custom audio). It differentiates from sibling tools like open_voice_bridge and end_voice_bridge by focusing on injecting audio into an existing call.

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 explains that STT is muted automatically and that no extra payment is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose mode 1 vs mode 2, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance or alternatives. Usage is implied but not fully specified.

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