Monitor Mute Beeper

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a write/mutating operation ('写操作'), but nothing about permissions/auth requirements, duration or persistence of the mute, whether an unmute counterpart exists, or error behavior when the beeper is unsupported.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It earns its place, though it is arguably too terse rather than exemplary.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage the description is insufficient: it omits auth/permission needs, reversibility, and any condition-guard (e.g. checking monitor_beep_supported) before muting.

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% and all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) are documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('静音蜂鸣器' = mute the beeper), so an agent can tell it is an action on the buzzer rather than a status/list tool. It distinguishes it from the read-only beeper siblings (monitor_beep_supported, monitor_beep_events, monitor_beep_reasons), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 when-to-use context is given: nothing says under what conditions a beeper should be muted, whether it is reversible, or whether any sibling should be consulted first (e.g. monitor_beep_supported to confirm hardware support). Pure statement of action with no routing guidance.

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