disable_mic

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the specific target ('default microphone source') but does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, or failure behavior beyond the bare action.

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 conveys the action and target with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's trivial parameter surface.

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 has no parameters, a simple action, and annotations covering mutation and destructiveness, the description is nearly complete for calling the tool correctly. It lacks explicit return-value or unmount/mute-undo guidance, and the absence of usage alternatives is a minor gap, but nothing essential for invoking a parameterless mute action 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning and the schema needs no supplementation. This is the baseline case where no parameter documentation is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mute') and resource ('default microphone source'), making the tool's core function clear. It is distinct from broad audio tools like 'mute_audio' because it explicitly targets the microphone, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 such as 'mute_audio' or how to undo the action via 'enable_mic'. It states only the action itself, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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