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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: audio may become audible immediately, which warns of a sudden-sound side effect. It also suggests a verification step. It stops short of stating any auth/pairing prerequisites beyond the schema's device reference.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and its immediate consequence front-loaded, no filler. "paired computer system output" is slightly redundant phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A simple one-parameter toggle with an output schema, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers purpose, trigger, and the key side effect; the only minor gap is any prerequisite about the device being paired/enabled.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the pointer to list_devices. The description adds nothing about the device argument, which is acceptable since the schema carries the burden.

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?

States a specific verb (unmute) and resource (paired computer system output), so the operation is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of audio_mute. It doesn't explicitly name audio_mute or audio_status as siblings, but the intended action is unmistakable from the name/description pair.

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?

"on user request" gives a minimal trigger condition, and "verify volume if necessary" implies a follow-up check (presumably audio_set_volume or audio_status). No explicit when-not or named alternatives, so routing to the right sibling is left inferred.

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