set_track_mute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the important limitation that Master cannot be muted and clarifies track_kind options. However, it does not disclose other potential behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or reversibility, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. It states the action, parameter kind values, and a key limitation, all in concise form.

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 simple setter tool, the description covers the main action, the track_kind options, and the Master limitation. It is largely complete for the tool's complexity, though the lack of track_index semantics remains a minor 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for track_kind by enumerating allowed values and default. However, track_index is left unspecified (e.g., zero-based or one-based) and mute is left to its name. This partial compensation does not fully address the parameters, resulting in a low score.

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 action ('Mute or un-mute a track') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling track-setter tools by specifying track_kind ('regular' or 'return') and the Master limitation, making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (muting/unmuting tracks) and includes an explicit exclusion ('Master cannot be muted'). However, it does not mention any alternatives like set_track_solo or set_track_arm, so it falls short of a 5.

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