set_word_suppressed_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies mutation via 'toggle', but does not state side effects on audio, reversibility, prerequisites, or what the output means. The cryptic 'TOOL_TIMEBASE: source' touches on behavior but is not explained.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The single sentence lacks necessary detail, and the technical aside 'TOOL_TIMEBASE: source' is not earned because it is not explained.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does in practical terms, how parameters relate, or when to call it. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain project_path, track_id, word_index (e.g., how the index is counted, source timebase), or the meaning of the suppressed boolean (suppress vs. unsuppress). The only hint, 'TOOL_TIMEBASE: source', is insufficient and unclear.

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 gives a verb and resource ('toggle suppressed' on a 'per-track word'), so it's not a tautology. However, it is vague: 'per-track word' is ambiguous, 'toggle' conflicts with the boolean 'suppressed' parameter (which implies setting, not toggling), and the 'TOOL_TIMEBASE: source' hint is unexplained. It doesn't distinguish this tool from many sibling suppression tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_low_audibility_suppression_tool, apply_bleed_suppression_tool, or set_effect_bypass_tool. No context about manual vs. batch suppression is provided.

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