Stop speech on a live call

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the HTTP semantics (DELETE /Call/{uuid}/Speak/) and that it targets only speak_text-originated speech, but does not say what happens if no speech is playing or whether the operation is reversible.

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 sentence with the action, source of the speech, scope, and endpoint packed in, with the core verb leading. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, triggering resource, call-state constraint, and endpoint. The only real gap is behavior when no speech is active, which is minor for a single-parameter stop operation.

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 coverage is 0% for the single call_uuid parameter, so the description must carry the load. The path template DELETE /Call/{uuid}/Speak/ conveys that the uuid identifies the target call, which is marginally useful, but no format, constraint, or distinction from other call-scoped uuids is offered.

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?

Specific verb (stop), specific resource (text-to-speech started by speak_text), and a scoping condition (on a LIVE call). It also names the sibling that creates the speech, so an agent can distinguish this from stop_audio, which stops audio files rather than TTS.

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?

States the trigger condition clearly: use it on a live call to stop speech that speak_text initiated. The 'LIVE call' qualifier implicitly excludes ended calls, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or direct pointer to the alternative (stop_audio) for stopping other audio.

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