kde_audio_set_mute

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not the sole source of the safety profile. It does add two useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the operation targets exactly one live device, and the result is verified after the change. It omits what 'verify' actually means on failure, whether an error is raised, and whether muting a sink affects routed streams.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target come first and the verification clause follows. The adverb 'explicitly' is slightly vague for the space it occupies, but overall 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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and zero schema coverage on all four parameters, this is thin. It does not state how to obtain a valid device_name, what the verification returns to the caller, or how failures surface, all of which an agent needs before invoking a state-changing tool.

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% across four required parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It only loosely maps to 'direction' (sink/source) and 'muted' (mute/unmute); it never explains that device_name must match a discovered device, why a session constant is required, or what happens on a name mismatch.

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 names a concrete verb pair (mute/unmute) and a concrete resource (a live sink or source), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as kde_audio_set_volume or kde_audio_set_default, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 word 'explicitly' hints that this sets an absolute state rather than toggling, but the description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite steps (e.g. that the device should first be identified via kde_audio_list), and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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