xr18_channel_set_mute

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does clarify that the operation sets or clears mute state, which helps interpret the boolean 'muted' parameter. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether the source must already exist, what errors occur, or what the response is. For a simple state-set operation this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action. It wastes no words and communicates the core purpose efficiently. The list of supported source types is compact and useful without being verbose.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with only two parameters and no output schema, so a short description is reasonable. It covers the core intent but leaves the source addressing format ambiguous, which is important since 'source' accepts either an integer or a string. Without referencing helpers like xr18_resolve_channel or xr18_list_channels, an agent may guess incorrectly on how to specify a source.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by enumerating possible source categories (channel, AUX, FX, bus, LR, or DCA) and by associating the boolean with mute/unmute. Yet it does not explain the exact string or integer forms accepted by 'source', nor does it clarify whether 'muted' true means mute and false means unmute explicitly, though that is strongly implied.

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 a specific action, 'Mute or unmute', and identifies the resource as a channel, AUX, FX, bus, LR, or DCA source. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like xr18_channel_set_fader or xr18_headamp_set_phantom because the action is explicit. However, it does not precisely define the accepted source format beyond listing categories, so there is some ambiguity in how to specify a target.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or excluded cases. A user could infer from the name and description that it is for muting, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool routing. This is effectively a bare action statement without usage direction.

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