mute_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not cover critical aspects like whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other tracks, or has side effects (e.g., muting might silence associated effects). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output, leaving the agent reliant on the schema for parameter info and inference for other aspects.

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% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (sequenceId, trackIndex, muted). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('mutes or unmutes') and the target ('an entire audio track'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'adjust_udio_levels' or 'stabilize_clip', which might involve audio modifications but serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as adjusting volume levels or applying audio effects. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing sequence and track) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the input schema alone.

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