unmute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the fallback-to-50% edge case, the write quota (1 write), and that the sidecar read is local. It does not describe the effect on the active device or what happens on failure, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The core action and fallback are front-loaded, and the quota note is a compact second sentence that earns its place.

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 three optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers behavior, edge case, and cost. The only gap is return-value format, which is partially addressed by the response_format parameter and the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the remembered-volume mechanism that maps to device_id's default, but does not add syntax or formatting details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (restore), resource (volume level remembered by mute), and the fallback behavior, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like mute, set_volume, and volume_ramp. An agent can tell instantly what it does.

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 phrase 'remembered by mute' implies the usage scenario — unmuting after a mute — but it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use it. With a huge sibling list containing set_volume, volume_ramp and volume_step, explicit routing guidance would help.

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