set_voice

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this operation mutates state, whether it is idempotent, what happens to unspecified parameters, or how the dry_run parameter behaves. The presence of dry_run is completely unaddressed, which is a significant omission for an effectful tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and the affected settings. It avoids redundancy, though it omits important details that could have been added without excessive length.

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 is moderately complex with a nested voice object, dry_run, and index parameters, but the description only covers the main settings. It does not explain dry_run, groupIndex, trackIndex, defaults, or return values (no output schema). This is incomplete for an agent to call the tool reliably without additional inference.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter behavior. It lists the setting names (loudness, tension, etc.) but provides no ranges, defaults, units, or relationships. The nested vocalModeParams object and the groupIndex/trackIndex selectors are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without sufficient semantics.

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 states a clear action ('Set voice settings') on a specific resource ('NoteGroupReference') and lists the specific settings it affects. This is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_parameters, relying on the resource name to imply specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_voice or set_parameters. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would select this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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