change_voice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: updates the listener daemon, changes the dashboard, affects all later speak/announce, and persists across restarts. It could also mention reversibility or error cases, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: the effect on future speech, persistence, how to discover options, and the contrast with speak. 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, side effects, parameter meaning, and relationship to sibling tools, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke it.

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?

The schema only defines voice_id as a string. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning (the voice to switch to) and telling the user to use list_voices to see valid options. It does not detail the string format, but the guidance is adequate for a single parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deliberately switch this agent's speaking voice,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings by stating that 'Speak itself carries no voice information' and that this call is the only way to change how the agent sounds.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool ('when the user asks for it'), directs users to list_voices to see options, and contrasts with speak/announce by noting they carry no voice information. This makes the use case and alternatives clear.

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