propose_range_mute_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the no-side-effect guarantee (never applies audio, never approves), the human-in-the-loop lifecycle (host auditions and approves or rejects), and the idempotency rule (reuse command_id only when retrying the same target). It omits permissions/auth requirements and any rate or size limits.

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?

Purpose comes first, followed by input sourcing, the safety constraint, the retry rule, and the review workflow. Four short sentences with no filler; a little tightening is possible but nothing is wasted.

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 the mental model an agent needs: this is a proposal, not an edit, and the command_id makes retries safe. The main remaining gap is the unmentioned project_path parameter and the absence of any permission context.

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% and the nested target is an undescribed free-form object, so the description is doing the work: it identifies target as a serialized ExactRangeTarget sourced from bleed preview or the range editor, and explains command_id as replay-safe identity with a reuse rule. Only project_path is left undocumented.

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+resource ("propose an exact range mute") with scope ("for host review"), which cleanly separates it from apply_edits/approve_edits and from mute_off_speaker_tool. It does not name the closest sibling propose_range_cut_tool, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 the provenance of the required input ("Pass a serialized ExactRangeTarget from bleed preview or the range editor"), which is real usage context, and explains that the host must approve. However it never states when to choose this over propose_range_cut_tool or the direct apply/approve tools; the contrast is only implied by "never applies audio or approves".

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