Mute bot

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the bot remains in the channel rather than being removed, which tells the agent the change is a reversible state toggle.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and the clarifying clause directly explains the observable behavior. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the effect and the retained channel presence. It could note that unmuting is handled by bot_unmute, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional channel parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default fallback. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Mute') and resource ('the bot') and clarifies the effect: the bot stays in chat but stops sending messages. This implicitly separates it from bot_leave and bot_unmute, though it never names those siblings.

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 — the agent can infer this is for silencing the bot without removing it. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the bot_unmute counterpart, and no prerequisites (e.g. token permissions) called out.

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