set_track_mute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and parameter meanings, but does not mention return values, side effects, or whether the mute state is per-session or persistent. This is a minimal description that reveals no behavior beyond the direct action.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, the remaining three define parameters. No redundancy or 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 mute/unmute tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and all parameters. However, it omits any mention of return behavior or when to prefer this over related mute/solo tools, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 description explicitly explains each parameter, including track_index, muted (with default and semantics), and user_prompt (noting telemetry purpose). This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions (0% coverage) and adds meaning beyond the bare titles.

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 the specific verb-resource relationship: 'Mute or unmute a track.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_track_name, set_track_volume, or set_track_pan by spelling out the exact operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_track_solo or set_track_volume. The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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