set_clip_muted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only adds the synonym 'deactivated' and parameter meanings, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens when indices are out of range.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a clean arg list. Every line earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the operation statement.

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?

The tool is a simple setter, and the description covers the core operation and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. However, it lacks any mention of edge cases or side effects, though these may be less critical for a trivial boolean setter.

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?

The description explicitly explains all three parameters: track_index and clip_index are zero-based, and muted is a boolean with true/false semantics. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and title. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a strong compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('clip muted') with a clear parameter ('muted'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from siblings like set_track_mute and stop_clip, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the operation itself.

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