set_mute

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 says nothing about prerequisite state (connected/selected receiver), whether the change persists, or any permission/error behavior; only the boolean toggle is implied.

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, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves no room for the scoping detail the tool arguably needs.

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 not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description should cover prerequisites and the receiver/default-receiver behavior, which it omits entirely.

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 50%: 'receiver' is documented in the schema (IP from discover_receivers, omit for default), while 'muted' has only a title. The description's 'mute or unmute' loosely maps to the boolean, but adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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 (mute/unmute) and resource (the main zone), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like set_volume, set_power, and set_input. It stops short of naming the receiver/zone scope that the 'receiver' parameter implies, so it doesn't fully resolve how this tool relates to multi-receiver setups.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of whether a receiver must first be picked up via discover_receivers, and no statement of what happens when 'receiver' is omitted or that only the main zone is affected.

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