set_audio_mute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and lists valid channels, saying nothing about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or success/failure behavior—a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the essential channel list. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 setter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and full channel enumeration. However, with no annotations it lacks any behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, auth requirements), leaving a minor but real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by enumerating the complete set of valid channel names ('master', 'input1'–'input8', 'ddr1', 'ddr2', 'aux1', 'phones'). This compensates for the lack of an enum constraint in the schema.

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 ('Mute or unmute') and resource ('an audio channel'), and the action verb cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like set_audio_volume (volume change) and get_audio_state (read). An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_audio_volume or get_audio_state. Usage is only implied by the verb 'mute or unmute'; there are no when/when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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