set_mute

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and does not explain whether the muted value is an absolute state or toggle, whether changes persist, what happens on invalid indices, or what the tool returns.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There is no redundant wording, and the main 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 simple three-parameter boolean setter, the description plus the input schema is minimally viable to form a correct call. But there are no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not explain response behavior, error conditions, or whether the operation is absolute or toggling, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate by explaining index or the muted boolean. The kind parameter is well described in the schema, but index and muted semantics are left implicit; the 'Mute or unmute' wording weakly hints at the muted boolean but adds little concrete value.

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 or unmute') and a specific resource ('a strip on the WING console'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_fader, set_pan, or set_name. Even without the schema, an agent can tell this tool is for mute state control.

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 implied by the action itself: use this tool when you need to mute or unmute a strip. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to siblings, so it relies on inference.

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