Set microphone mute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral nuance by stating the operation is idempotent and that it verifies the state, which is useful. However, the schema already notes idempotency, and the description omits details like permissions, side effects, or return behavior. The added value is marginal beyond 'verify' and 'aggregate'.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description covers its core purpose. However, lacking annotations or an output schema means the description must explain the return or verification behavior more explicitly—'verify' is mentioned but not described, which is a clear gap.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'muted' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though 'aggregate' hints at broader scope without specifying parameter syntax or format.

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 verb 'set and verify' and the specific resource: the aggregate LIVE Studio microphone mute state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like studio_set_audio_mute, which likely targets a source's audio mute, by focusing on the microphone and 'aggregate' state.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The phrase 'aggregate LIVE Studio microphone mute state' implies it affects global microphone muting, but there is no clear context or sibling differentiation.

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