set_mute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds only the mute/unmute action, which is obvious from the name, and does not disclose any side effects, confirmation behavior, or scope of impact (e.g., does it affect all strips or just targeted ones?). This is minimal added value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and the parameter values directly. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the 'confirm' parameter, which could affect behavior, and doesn't clarify what a 'strip' is or how targets are specified (e.g., identifiers). The lack of any mention of confirmation or safety makes it incomplete for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains 'muted' (true/false) and 'targets' (one or more strips), which covers two of three parameters. However, it omits any explanation of 'confirm', leaving the agent to guess its purpose (likely a safety confirmation, but not stated). This is partial compensation but incomplete.

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 clearly states the verb ('Mute'/'unmute') and the resource ('one or more strips'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling set_* tools by being specifically about mute state. It doesn't mention the mixer context explicitly, but 'strips' is domain-appropriate and clear enough.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to mute/unmute strips) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It's adequate but leaves the agent to infer the selection logic from the name and siblings.

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