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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that muting affects both preview and export, that the pipeline automatically sets muted:true after demuxing to prevent double audio, and that unmuting restores the baked audio. This gives a solid behavioral model without needing to infer side effects.

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 compact three-sentence block that front-loads the core functionality and immediately states the key behavioral scope. Every sentence adds meaningful context: the effect, the pipeline reason, and the restore action. No filler.

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 boolean setter with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the effect on export/preview, and the restore path. It could mention the relationship to overlay audio more explicitly, but the NLE-style linked A/V explanation covers the important context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of the 'muted' boolean (true silences, false restores) but adds little beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter 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 clearly states the verb ('Mute or unmute'), the resource ('a video layer's baked audio'), and the effect ('silenced in both preview and export'). It distinguishes the concept of 'baked audio' from any overlay track, which differentiates it from add_audio_overlay/remove_audio_overlay siblings.

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 explains when the muted state is automatically set (by the audio-split step during demuxing) and instructs passing muted:false to restore, which gives clear invocation guidance. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context of muting vs. overlays is clear enough.

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