enable_mic

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a mutating, non-idempotent action with no destructive hint, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds only that it targets the default source; it does not disclose behaviors like whether it will fail if no microphone exists or what happens if already unmuted.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant terms. All words add meaning and the action is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter action tool with annotations covering safety and mutation, this description is largely sufficient. It lacks only an explicit note about return value or error conditions, but the simplicity of the tool makes that a minor gap.

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?

There are no parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the baseline is strong. The description's mention of 'default' provides the only selection context relevant to a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Unmute') and a specific resource ('the default microphone source'), making the action unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like mute_audio or disable_mic because it targets the microphone rather than speakers or hardware disable state.

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 intended use is clear: invoke when the user wants to unmute the default microphone. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as mute_audio, disable_mic, or set_volume, nor does it state when not to use it.

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