Set channel mute

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

The description matches annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and adds specific behavior: state=True mutes. However, it does not mention potential side effects or error conditions, which are partly covered by openWorldHint=true.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and key detail about the state parameter. No wasted words.

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 mute/unmute tool, the description is largely complete. It does not mention error handling or the existence of fl_get_channel_state for reading current state, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains the state parameter (True=mute, False=unmute) but only generically describes channel as 'channel-rack channel' without clarifying indexing or bounds beyond 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 clearly states the tool mutes/unmutes a channel-rack channel, with 'state=True mutes' clarifying the polarity. It distinguishes from siblings like fl_set_mixer_mute by specifying 'channel-rack'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fl_mute_tracks, fl_clear_mute_solo). It only states the action without context.

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