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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove a mute.' states only the action and gives no information about side effects, reversibility, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the target is not currently muted. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise with no filler or repetition. The core purpose is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, has 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, so a long description is not required. Still, the description omits any guidance about success/failure behavior, authentication requirements, or relationship to host.agent.mute. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, and the schema already explains both address and tenant_key. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the action itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Remove a mute.' clearly identifies the action (remove) and the resource (a mute), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling tool host.agent.mute. It is slightly terse and does not specify what kind of mute or target, but the input schema clarifies the address namespace. Overall clear but minimal.

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 usage by stating the action, and the tool name host.agent.unmute signals its counterpart host.agent.mute. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of mute or any alternative, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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