event_set_max_voices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core effect and argument constraints but does not reveal whether existing instances are stopped, whether the cap persists, what happens on invalid targets, or what the return value/error behavior is. This is a bare mutation description.

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 tightly structured: one clear purpose sentence followed by a minimal Args block. Every clause contributes useful information, and there is no repetition of schema fields or fluff.

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 two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: it names the action, target format, and valid voice range. Minor gaps remain around return behavior and effects on currently sounding instances, but these are less critical for a simple setter of this kind.

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 only provides types and titles, with 0% schema-described coverage. The description compensates fully: 'target' is explained as an event:// path or {guid}, and 'max_voices' is given a meaningful range of 1-1000 plus semantic context from the opening sentence about capping simultaneous instances.

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 uses a specific verb 'cap' with a clear resource ('event') and attribute ('maxVoices'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling event_set_name/event_set_folder/event_play tools by focusing on limiting simultaneous instances.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose: use this when you need to limit how many instances of an event can sound simultaneously. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name or contrast any alternative sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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