osc_mute_matrix

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 address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to audio signals when muted, whether changes are immediate or require confirmation, or what feedback (if any) the tool provides. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and gets straight to the point.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'muting a matrix output' means in practical terms, what effects the operation has, what permissions might be required, or what happens after invocation. Given the context of audio mixing (inferred from sibling tools), more operational context would be helpful for the agent.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (matrix number range 1-6, boolean mute flag). With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 matrix output'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'osc_mute_aux', 'osc_mute_bus', 'osc_mute_channel', and 'osc_mute_main', 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for muting different audio components (aux, bus, channel, main, matrix), the agent receives no help in selecting the correct tool for a given scenario. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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