Mute a group of tracks

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states 'leaves the others as they are' (clarifying non-destructive), 'one rollback unit' (undo behavior), and names the reverse tool fl_clear_mute_solo. This complements annotations where readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, providing useful operational semantics.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and two short phrases. It front-loads the core action, and every part is informative with no redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, parameter guidance, and undo behavior.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the operation, parameter options, undo mechanics, and reverse tool. However, it does not specify if it applies to mixer or channel tracks, but sibling context suggests a general track concept. 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'category or explicit tracks' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It explains the two ways to specify tracks but lacks additional details like acceptable formats or combinations.

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 tool mutes a group of tracks while leaving others unchanged. It specifies using category or explicit tracks, and mentions the reverse operation fl_clear_mute_solo, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools. The verb 'mute' and resource 'tracks' are explicit.

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 advises using 'category or explicit tracks' and notes that the operation forms one rollback unit, reversible via fl_clear_mute_solo. This provides clear context on how to use the tool and what to expect for undo, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like fl_set_mixer_mute.

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