x_mute_set

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly characterizes the call as a reversible social-graph write, says the result reports the resulting muting state, and discloses that it is disabled by the read-only policy. It also confirms the operation targets the authenticated user, adding behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Three dense sentences deliver the core behavior, parameter formats, side-effect profile, result semantics, and policy restriction without filler. The main operation is front-loaded and every clause 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 two-parameter mutation with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers auth scope, accepted identifier forms, action selection, reversibility, result reporting, and policy gating. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the accepted user formats and mute/unmute options, but it does not add information beyond the schema property descriptions, so no higher score is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('mute or unmute a user as the authenticated user') and immediately explains the real-world effect (hides posts from home timeline without unfollowing or notifying). This clearly separates mute from the sibling-like social-graph tools such as x_follow_set and x_block_set.

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?

It states the intended use case: mute to hide posts while preserving the follow relationship and avoiding notification. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the behavioral contrast with unfollowing/notifying gives sufficiently clear context for selection.

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