Speak in the room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses interruption of current speech, that audio is synthesized locally by Kokoro, and that the bot generates no content of its own. It omits whether the call blocks until speech finishes, how concurrent calls behave, and error conditions such as an invalid voice.

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?

Roughly four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its interruption behavior, followed by the no-auto-answer note and the sibling disambiguation. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, timing semantics, audio provenance, and sibling routing. The remaining gap is return/latency behavior, which is minor for a speak-now action.

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%, so all three parameters (text, voice, meeting_id) are already documented with examples and constraints. The description adds no additional semantics about parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no bonus.

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+resource+mode: 'says this line out loud in the room now,' with scoping detail that it interrupts in-progress speech. It also explicitly separates itself from share_content and send_chat, so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Names the alternatives and the axis of difference: 'share_content and send_chat are chat, not speech,' which tells the agent to choose this tool for audible output. It does not spell out exclusions such as muted rooms or meeting-state prerequisites, so it falls short of a full 5.

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