Set audio flags

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, local-scope operation. The description adds the partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields change'), which is genuinely useful and beyond annotations. However it doesn't state persistence, reversibility, or whether toggling is idempotent.

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 clauses, no waste, front-loaded with the verb and resources. The partial-update caveat is placed after the main action, which is appropriate.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition covers the basics but omits persistence behavior, default state, and confirmation feedback. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps an agent might need.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps the three params well by naming 'UI music, reanim/dance music, UI sounds' to MuteUIMusic, MuteReanimMusic, MuteUISound respectively, but it doesn't clarify boolean polarity (true = muted) or that omitting a field leaves it unchanged beyond the generic 'only provided fields' line.

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+resource: mute/unmute three audio categories. It's distinctive from siblings like reanim_get_audio (read) and reanim_set_reanimator_settings (different settings domain). Slight ambiguity around 'reanim/dance music' naming but clear enough.

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 'Only provided fields change' implies partial-update semantics, which is useful usage context. But there's no explicit when-to-use guidance vs siblings like reanim_get_audio or reanim_set_low_end_mode, and no stated prerequisites.

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