tidal_solo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that calling the tool mutes all other channels and that the effect is temporary, which is key behavioral information beyond the schema. It does not mention edge cases like toggling an already-soloed channel, but 'temporarily' signals reversibility sufficiently for a simple 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?

The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words, and it front-loads the primary action ('Solo a specific channel') before the side effect. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the temporary nature of the effect. It could have explicitly pointed to tidal_unsolo for reverting, but the 'temporarily' phrasing combined with the sibling-tool list gives an agent enough context to select and invoke it 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?

The only parameter 'channel' is already fully documented by the schema (enum d1–d9 with description 'The channel to solo'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'a specific channel' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Solo a specific channel') and resource ('channel'), and discloses the key side effect ('muting all others temporarily'), which differentiates it from siblings like tidal_unsolo and tidal_hush. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool without needing to open the 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?

The description conveys the usage context (when you want to isolate one channel) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions that would select tidal_hush or tidal_unsolo. The context is clear, but there is no exclusion or alternative routing, only an implied use case.

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