set_track_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral effect (muting a video track hides it from monitor/exports) and implies a return value ('read the state back'), but it does not detail the exact response format or other side effects like reversibility beyond unmuting.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 setter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, key behavior, and parameter context. The only minor gap is the exact return type/value of 'read the state back', but it is still understandable.

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 schema documents 2 of 3 parameters, and the description adds context by mentioning 'video or audio', which corresponds to track_type. However, it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema; track_index and muted are already clearly described. The missing track_type description is compensated by its enum values.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Mute or unmute') on a specific resource ('video or audio track') and adds that it reads the state back. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on track-level state, not clip-level operations.

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 description implies usage (use when you want to mute/unmute a track), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is clear enough from purpose, but lacks direct guidance.

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