ミュート切替

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: omitting the 'mute' parameter causes a toggle, while supplying true/false sets the state. However, it says nothing about side effects (e.g., volume restoration on unmute), failure modes, or what happens when the device is unreachable.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the critical toggle clarification. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core invocation behavior. However, with no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about return values, and no error/offline device behavior is mentioned, leaving some gaps for a control-plane tool.

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 both parameters (mute and device) are already documented in the schema, including the omission defaults. The description adds only marginal value by restating the toggle behavior already present in the schema's mute parameter description, which is the baseline expectation.

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 states a specific action ('ミュートを ON/OFF する') on a specific resource (mute), clearly differentiating this from the sibling tools (power, channel, volume, etc.). It also clarifies the toggle-vs-set duality, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when the user wants to mute, unmute, or toggle mute. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions such as devices that do not support muting. No and-when-not guidance is provided.

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