mute_off_speaker_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that each stretch becomes a visible muted region in Studio, that Restore reverses it, that History undoes the whole command, and that dry_run=true previews. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or whether the run is atomic, but the reversibility and preview semantics are substantial 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by precondition, criterion, and reversibility. The middle criterion sentence is long but each sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, precondition, and reversibility well. The gap is invocation-critical: with five optional, undescribed parameters and no statement of defaults or what happens when speaker/track_id/project_path are omitted, the agent lacks what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It explains only dry_run ('Preview with dry_run=true'), leaving apply, speaker, track_id, and project_path entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent cannot tell how to scope the operation or what apply controls.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mute a track') plus the exact scope ('wherever another speaker is talking and its own speaker is not'), which distinguishes it from siblings like track_set_mute_tool and speaker_gate_track_tool. The precise muting criterion (other track has words, this track has none, nothing louder than a copy of that speaker) leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition and context: 'Use after transcript reconcile on a call recording whose track still carries another person's voice.' It does not, however, name an alternative to use when the precondition is unmet or contrast itself with similar muting/gating siblings, so guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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