Stage Voice Note

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the 90-second cap, that stop uploads and transcribes on the laptop, that a missing mic permission silently returns {error: 'no mic'} rather than raising, and enumerates the exact reply shapes for start and stop. It also lists emitted events (voice_note_start, voice_note_dropped, voice_error) and downstream server events.

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 action semantics and constraints are front-loaded in the first sentences and no sentence is filler. It is dense and slightly run-on with the reply/event enumeration, but the density is justified by the behavioral detail being conveyed.

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 a mutation-ish capture tool with no annotations, two parameters, and an output schema, the description covers duration limits, failure mode, return values, and emitted events. The only gap is the unexplained required 'scene' parameter, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates for the action parameter thoroughly, including the unusual 'anything but stop starts' mapping. The required 'scene' parameter is never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Open or close the headset mic for a voice note') and anchors it to the phone gesture/page command voice_rec, so the action is unambiguous. It stops short of naming the sibling it is easily confused with (stage_voice_ack, phone_say), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

It explains what each action value triggers (start begins recording, stop uploads and transcribes) and implies when to use which, but never states when to use this tool versus the many alternative voice/phone tools such as stage_voice_ack or phone_say.

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