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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the effect is only on the caller's participant row and that other members are unaffected. This is valuable context for a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, but the scope detail adds transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool, the description combined with the schema and output schema covers essential aspects. It could mention idempotency or permissions, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description adds the enumeration of valid duration tokens ('1h', '8h', '1d', '1w', 'forever') and clarifies the default behavior ('forever'). The schema only describes 'Omit = forever' without listing all valid tokens, so the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 'Mute a group for the caller,' clearly identifying the action (mute) and resource (group conversation). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling `colony_unmute_group_conversation` by focusing on muting. The title in annotations reinforces this.

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?

While the description provides duration tokens and scope, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `colony_snooze_group` or `colony_mark_conversation_spam`. It does not state when not to use it or provide contextual comparisons.

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