x_api_mute_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly warns that this is a mutating, high-risk operation, lists required OAuth scopes and token types, describes environment-selection behavior, common failure conditions, and safety warnings. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent important execution context, though it does not explain reversibility or specific side effects beyond 'mutates X state'.

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 organized into labeled sections, making it scannable. However, the opening 'Mute User.' and the 'Use when: Mute User.' line are redundant and waste tokens. Other sections are dense but relevant, so overall it is acceptable but not tightly written.

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 high-risk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description provides useful context: expected response shape, common failures, recommended pre/post tools, and safety warnings. But it leaves critical details ambiguous, such as what the 'id' refers to, what the body should contain, and the exact effect of muting. This prevents it from being fully complete for autonomous invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, credentialKey, id, and body, explaining auth resolution and required path parameter. However, it does not explain the semantics of authorizationKey or preferredAuthType, and the statement 'id (path, unknown, required)' leaves the meaning of 'id' unclear. Body structure is also not documented, only noted as 'the documented request payload'.

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 'Mute User', a clear verb+resource statement indicating the tool's action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like x_api_unmute_user or x_api_get_users_muting, but the action is unambiguous. The rest of the description adds context, so it is not merely a tautology.

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 'Use when' field is entirely tautological ('Mute User'), providing no meaningful guidance. The 'Do not use when' section correctly discourages using this tool for exploration or when auth/configuration setup is needed, but it does not compare against alternative muting-related API tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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