tidal_solo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the tool mutes all other channels, and the state persists until tidal_unsolo is called (i.e., it is reversible and stateful). It omits edge cases such as soloing an already-soloed channel or whether inactive/empty channels can be soloed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope and lifecycle constraint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the effect, scope, and reversibility, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around interaction with other mute tools and behavior on inactive channels.

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% and the single channel parameter has a documented enum plus a description, so the baseline is 3. The description's "a specific channel" adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Solo a specific channel") with the effect spelled out ("muting all others"), and it names the sibling tidal_unsolo that reverses it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other mute-family siblings like tidal_hush or tidal_silence, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "until tidal_unsolo is called" implies the lifecycle and points at the paired undo tool, which is useful implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or comparison against mute alternatives such as tidal_hush or tidal_silence.

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