set_default_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits a bare setter would not reveal: the setting is a fallback applied only when no voice is named, and it is persisted ('remembered across sessions'). It omits mutation-side details such as what happens on an invalid voice or whether existing vocals are affected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the two qualifying clauses (fallback scope, persistence) after it. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the setting's meaning and persistence but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. unrecognized voice string) or confirmation of the change. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, and the schema entry for 'voice' is actually richer than the description, referencing list_speech_voices and the 'female'/'male' literals. The description only refers to 'a voice' and adds no syntax or format detail, so the schema-does-the-work baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Makes a voice the user's default for robot vocals'), so the agent immediately knows this is a setter for a persistent default voice. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of the setting's effect ('used whenever no voice is named'), which tells the agent when this default actually applies. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or any exclusion/precondition, so it remains minimum-viable.

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