mute

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

The description reveals a toggle behavior: each call cuts or restores sound depending on current state. This directly contradicts idempotentHint=true, since repeating a toggle does not produce the same effect every time. Therefore, the description contradicts an annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. For a zero-argument command, it communicates the full action efficiently.

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 no-argument, no-output tool, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the idempotency conflict leaves an agent unsure whether repeated calls are safe or will toggle sound off and on, which is a significant gap in predicting behavior.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed. The description adds no parameter detail, but that is appropriate because the schema is empty and there is nothing to document.

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 clear, specific verbs ('coupe ou remet') and identifies the exact resource ('le son de la TV'). Its toggle meaning is distinct from sibling volume controls, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want to mute or restore TV sound rather than incrementally adjust volume. However, it offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives among the volume siblings.

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