track_set_muted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the operation and gives no information about side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or behavior when track_id is invalid. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It earns its place, though it is too sparse to cover behavioral or parameter detail.

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 two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it leaves parameter semantics and behavioral caveats entirely to the schema, which itself has no descriptions, so context is incomplete.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify that muted=true means muted and muted=false means unmuted, nor does it expand on what track_id refers to beyond the property name.

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 (mute/unmute), a clear resource (a track), and a scope qualifier (audio). This distinguishes it from sibling state setters like track_set_locked and track_set_hidden, so an agent can identify when this tool applies.

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 implies usage: call this when you need to mute or unmute a track's audio. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as track_set_hidden or track_set_locked, nor does it state when not to use it.

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