mcp_opendaw_set_track_mute

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, whether the operation is destructive, how it affects playback, or any permissions required. The boolean parameter implies 'set to state' rather than toggle, but that is not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, it may be too minimal, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity, but the structure is clean.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and presence of an output schema, the description should still explain how to identify the target audio unit via unit_index. The ambiguity between 'track' in the name and 'audio unit' in the description is unresolved. The description is too sparse for a tool that directly mutates an audio element.

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 does not compensate. 'Mute' implies a boolean value, but 'unit_index' is left undefined—no explanation of what a unit is, how indices are numbered, or how to discover valid indices. The description adds almost no value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 clearly states the action ('Mute or unmute') and the target ('an audio unit'). It is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_region_mute or set_clip_mute. However, the tool name says 'track' while the description says 'audio unit,' which could cause minor ambiguity.

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. It does not mention when muting a track is appropriate, how it relates to solo, or any prerequisites such as needing the track to exist.

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