speaker_test_sound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It prominently warns about physical sound, requires confirmation, and mentions the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED gate. This meaningfully discloses side effects and execution safeguards, though it does not detail return behavior or errors.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the warning and endpoint. It is mostly economical, though the 'REQUIRED' marker for speaker_id partially duplicates the schema's required list. Overall, each line adds practical value.

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 side-effecting test action with an output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: identifier sourcing, confirmation, volume, and environment gating. It could be more complete with an explicit comparison to siren_test_sound or notes on failure conditions, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains host format, where to obtain speaker_id, the confirm requirement, and the volume range/default. This is essential semantic information an agent could not derive from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Test a speaker's sound') and the exact resource/endpoint (POST /v1/speakers/{id}/test-sound). The resource is explicit enough to distinguish from the sibling siren_test_sound tool.

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?

The description provides clear operational context: speaker_id must come from list_speakers, confirm must be true, volume is a 0-100 range, and there is a physical sound warning. It does not explicitly compare against siren_test_sound, but the usage conditions are concrete and actionable.

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