mute_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic effect (mute/unmute) without disclosing potential side effects, requirements (e.g., track existence), or reversibility. A more detailed description could include that muting affects audio playback but does not delete the track.

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 with no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise for a simple toggle operation.

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 mute/unmute tool, the description and schema together provide enough information to understand the action and parameters. However, it lacks context about which tracks are affected (e.g., does it require an audio track?) and what happens after muting. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description is neither detrimental nor additive.

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 unmute') and the resource ('audio track'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'lock_track' or 'toggle_track_visibility', as muting is a specific audio action.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts. For example, it does not clarify if the track must be an audio track or if it can be applied to video tracks.

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