Set audio output mute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by noting the operation is idempotent and includes verification. However, it does not describe return values, error conditions, or side effects, leaving some gaps for a mutating operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, idempotency, and verification. It could be more detailed about what 'verify' entails (e.g., return confirmation), but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'muted' ('Desired mute state. The operation is idempotent.'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not exceed the baseline expected from high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: idempotently set and verify the mute state for the live studio audio output. It includes a specific verb (set/verify), resource (audio output mute), and scope (LIVE), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like studio_set_microphone_mute.

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 implies usage context ('LIVE Studio audio output mute') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks direct mentions of when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools, though the resource name 'audio output' provides some differentiation.

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