Mute the bot (stop listening)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the blast radius (transcription only, not the whole bot), but says nothing about reversibility (unmute exists), idempotency, required meeting state, or any permission/authorization requirements for a mutation-like operation.

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 with the effect front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence partially restates the first ('captions' vs 'transcription'), a minor redundancy rather than waste.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but thin: no output schema and no annotations mean the agent gets no information about what happens after the call, whether unmute restores captions, or whether the meeting must be live. Those gaps keep it at minimum-viable completeness.

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 is a single parameter whose schema description is fully covered (100%), including where meeting_id comes from (create_broadcast/join_broadcast). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete effect ('Stops captions for this meeting') and scopes it ('only stops transcription'), which resolves the ambiguity of the name 'mute'. It does not name the counterpart sibling (unmute) or distinguish itself from transcript-reading tools like get_transcript/tail_transcript, so differentiation is incomplete but the purpose is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to stop captioning, and the 'only stops transcription' clause hints that other bot functions remain active. There is no explicit when-to-use vs unmute, no prerequisites or state requirements, and no when-not guidance.

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