set_track_mute

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core effect ('Set the mute state') and explains the mute parameter, but it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or whether the operation is reversible. For a simple setter, this is adequate but minimal.

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 highly concise: a single-line purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It states the action and parameter meanings. It lacks extra context such as error handling or track existence prerequisites, but these are not critical for this straightforward setter.

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 provides only types and titles for track_index (integer) and mute (boolean), with no additional descriptions. The tool description compensates by explaining that track_index is 'the index of the track' and mute is 'True to mute, False to unmute.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, fully covering both parameters.

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: 'Set the mute state of a track.' This uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('mute state of a track'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_solo or set_track_volume. The intention 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?

The description implies usage: it is for setting the mute state of an individual track. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unmute_all or set_track_solo. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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