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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the consequential detail an agent actually needs: removal from the default error list, suppression of ALL notifications (email, Slack, integrations) until unmuted, and that notices continue to be recorded. It also clarifies reversibility, which softens the destructiveHint framing without contradicting it.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE mutability marker and followed by effect, side effects, reversibility, and endpoint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: mutability, idempotency-consistent behavior, notification suppression, persistence of notices, and how to undo. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the string-typed group_id rationale and the source tools for each id. The API path PUT /api/v4/projects/{project_id}/groups/{group_id}/muted reinforces each parameter's role but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb+resource and a scope marker: 'WRITE: mute one error group.' The singular scope ('one error group') and the presence of the inverse sibling airbrake_unmute_group make the boundary unambiguous without opening either schema.

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?

States the effect and names the reversal path ('Reversible with airbrake_unmute_group'), which routes an agent to the alternative when it needs the inverse operation. It does not say when muting is inappropriate (e.g., versus resolving or deleting a group), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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