Reverse an applied audio edit by restoring the original source mute; for clip removals, perform a whole-action History Undo.
Restore an ordinary source mute; clip removals require whole-action History Undo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "record_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "record_id"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a scope limitation (it will not handle clip removals), but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, reversibility, or what happens if the edit was never applied.
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?
A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no padding. It is tightly written, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than elegant brevity.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no stated prerequisites or post-conditions, the definition is thin for a state-mutating revert operation. The one limitation note it does provide is not enough to compensate.
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 description never mentions record_id or project_path. For a mutation tool where the caller must know what record_id identifies and when project_path is needed, the description leaves both parameters entirely to the bare schema.
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 names a specific action and object (restore a source mute) and explicitly distinguishes this from the history-level undo path for clip removals. It is clearer than the bare tool name, though the phrase 'ordinary source mute' is jargon that leaves the exact edit class somewhat ambiguous.
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?
It gives an explicit exclusion and names the alternative: clip removals must go through whole-action History Undo rather than this tool. It does not spell out the positive condition for calling it (e.g. after apply_edits or approve_edits), so context is clear but not fully framed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.