mute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool persists previous volume in the sidecar, that unmute restores it, and that the quota is '1 read + 1 write.' This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention behavior when already muted or describe the response shape.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the action, the advantage over volume_step, the restore mechanism, and the quota. The core behavior is front-loaded and there is no 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 mutating tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what it does, how it stores state, how to restore, and cost. It could add what happens on repeated mute or clarify whether the device must be specified, but these are minor gaps.

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 the schema already documents dry_run, device_id, and response_format. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema handles 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Set volume to 0 while remembering the previous level in the sidecar.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool unmute by noting 'unmute restores it,' and from volume_step by framing mute as a single word that replaces repeated steps.

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 gives clear use context: use mute as a one-word alternative to multiple volume_step calls, and use unmute to restore the prior level. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like set_volume or state when not to use mute, so it stops short of a fully explicit when/when-not framing.

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