Mute source

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 action without elaborating on side effects, whether the change is persistent, or the role of the 'confirm' parameter. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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, fluff-free sentence, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity (including a 'confirm' parameter), so it sacrifices completeness for brevity. A few more words would significantly improve it without losing conciseness.

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?

Given there is an output schema and 2 parameters, one of which is a boolean requiring clarification, the description is incomplete. It does not address the behavior of 'confirm', potential side effects, or the relationship to sibling audio tools. The tool is simple, but the description leaves too much unspecified for fuller completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'source_name' is inferable from the tool's purpose, but 'confirm' is completely unexplained—its effect, whether it gates the action, or what the default false means. The description adds no value beyond the schema's field names.

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 'Mute an audio source' clearly states the action (mute) and the target (audio source), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'unmute_source'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention any scope or context that would further differentiate from other audio tools like 'set_volume', so it's clear but not maximally distinct.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'unmute_source', 'set_volume', or 'hide_source'). The intended use is implied by the name, but there is no explicit context or mention of prerequisites, which leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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