set_character_voice

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description usefully adds that it saves the default voice and does not play a sample, which prevents confusion with speak/play_audio. It does not describe overwrite behavior or whether the setting persists across sessions, but the key behavioral distinction is covered.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the non-playback clarification is concise and useful.

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 simple one-parameter setter with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and an important behavioral distinction. The notable gap is parameter semantics and any explicit relationship to sibling tools for listing voices or checking current voice status.

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 should compensate by explaining the required voice parameter. It does not mention the parameter name, the allowed enum values, or what each voice choice means. The schema enum lists valid values, but the description adds little semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: saving the character's default voice. It also distinguishes this setter from playback tools by saying it does not play a sample. It does not explicitly contrast with list_character_voices or get_voice_status, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'when the user chooses one' gives an implied trigger for using the tool. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as list_character_voices for discovering valid voices.

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