osc_mute_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'mute or unmute' implies a state-changing operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, what happens to audio signals, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'muting' entails in this audio mixing context, what the expected behavior is, or what (if anything) is returned. The description should provide more operational context given the complexity implied by the sibling tools list.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain channel numbering conventions, what 'mute' means in this context, or any parameter interactions.

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 resource ('a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_mute_aux' or 'osc_mute_bus', but the resource specificity ('channel') provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'osc_mute_aux', 'osc_mute_bus', or 'osc_mute_main'. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusions for usage.

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