vod_submit_voices

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

No annotations exist here, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: submission triggers analysis, each call creates a new voice with no cross-call deduplication (preserving voice volume), and a missing key silently falls back to a zero-field anonymous token. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or response shape, so it falls short of a 5.

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 front-loaded: the action, the write scope, and the confirmation requirement come first, which is good. However, it is compressed to the point of opacity: the internal rule tags "R1" and "R3" are cited without any referent, and the voiceId/title language refers to a data model the schema does not expose.

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 3-parameter, fully schema-documented tool with no annotations, the description covers write semantics, confirmation, side effects, and auth fallback, which is adequate. Since no output schema exists, the complete absence of any indication of what a submission returns (IDs, status, per-item errors for a batch of up to 50) is a real gap.

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 the baseline is a 3. The description reinforces the guardrail semantics of the confirmation flow and the volume-preserving deduplication behavior, but it also describes "voiceId" and "title" fields that are absent from the schema, adding confusion rather than meaning for the actual parameters (voices, product, confirmed).

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 concrete verb and resource ("提交 agent 产品用户反馈声音") plus the write scope and confirmation requirement, which clearly separates it from the read-only siblings vod_list_submitted and vod_auth_status. It loses a point because it goes on to describe behavior in terms of "voiceId" and "title", fields that do not exist in the input schema, leaving mild ambiguity about what is actually submitted.

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 implies the usage context: a write operation that requires confirmation, backed by the schema's confirmed-clause description. It never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition, so the agent must infer from the sibling names that this is the only submission path.

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