osc_mute_bus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Mute or unmute' implies a state-changing operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is immediate or requires confirmation, potential side effects on audio routing, or what happens if the bus is already in the requested state. This leaves significant gaps 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 perfectly concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential action and target without any wasted words. Every element ('Mute or unmute a mix bus') earns its place by communicating the core functionality 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what the tool returns (success/failure indicators), error conditions, or how it interacts with the audio system. The presence of multiple similar muting tools in the sibling list further highlights the need for more contextual differentiation.

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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Bus number (1-16)' and 'True to mute, false to unmute'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have added context about bus numbering conventions or muting behavior.

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 resource ('a mix bus'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like osc_mute_aux, osc_mute_channel, osc_mute_main, and osc_mute_matrix, which all perform similar muting operations on different audio components.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple muting tools available (osc_mute_aux, osc_mute_channel, osc_mute_main, osc_mute_matrix), the description offers no context about what distinguishes a 'mix bus' from these other components or when this specific tool should be selected.

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