set_questionnaire_audio_recording

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 auth requirement ('admin_write permission') and a safety behavior ('exact questionnaire identity confirmation'). However, it does not describe side effects, whether existing settings are overwritten, or what the tool returns, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 the core action front-loaded and the prerequisites as a clear second sentence. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has four parameters, two lacking schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description does not explain the meaning or values of 'enabled' and 'profile', nor the tool's return behavior, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 50%, with 'enabled' and 'profile' undocumented. The description adds no meaning for these parameters and only restates the schema's existing confirmation requirement for 'confirm_questionnaire_identity'. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Set') and a specific resource ('questionnaire audio-recording settings'), clearly distinguishing this tool from its getter counterpart (get_questionnaire_audio_recording) and the assignment-level sibling (set_assignment_audio_recording). It is direct and not tautological.

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 provides clear context by stating the required 'admin_write permission' and the need for 'exact questionnaire identity confirmation', which helps an agent decide whether it can and should call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scope is unambiguous, making the intended usage evident.

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