audio_guided_session_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-mutating trait ('without changing audio state'), which is valuable behavioral transparency. However, it does not mention whether other state (e.g., persisted plans) is modified, any permissions required, or what the returned plan looks like. The description is partially transparent but incomplete.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and key constraint. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too brief. It does not explain 'hash-bound', describe parameters, indicate return values, or provide any operational context. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without further information.

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 provides zero parameter guidance. The schema itself includes some self-explanatory names (name, deviceClass, mode) but ambiguous ones like 'home' and 'targetId' are not clarified. Since the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, this dimension scores low.

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 ('Create') and a resource ('hash-bound guided or expert calibration workflow'), which clearly establishes the tool's core purpose. It also distinguishes itself from execution tools by adding 'without changing audio state', which separates it from siblings like audio_guided_session_execute. However, the term 'hash-bound' is ambiguous and not explained, slightly reducing clarity.

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 implies this is a planning tool (create a workflow) and emphasizes it does not change audio state, which indirectly indicates it should be used before an execution tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.

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