mixer_unmute

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals a mutating operation, consistent with the description. The description adds the useful scope detail that only the master output is affected (not per-channel), but says nothing about idempotency or behavior when already unmuted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the action and its target are stated immediately.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema toggle, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Minor gap: it does not note what happens on an already-unmuted mixer, but that is unlikely to block a correct call.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'master mixer output' reinforces that no channel argument exists, confirming scope rather than contradicting the empty 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?

States a specific verb (unmute) and resource (master mixer output), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling mixer_mute and from mixer_channel_volume. It does not name the alternative explicitly, but the inversion is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the inverse of mixer_mute and applies it when the master output is muted. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided.

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