fl_set_mixer_mute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that the tool reports the readback FL gave on a later tick, implying a delayed/asynchronous read rather than an immediate confirmation. It does not contradict the 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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the important readback behavior appended in the second clause. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 rich schema, annotations, output schema, and the added readback behavior, the description provides most of the context an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly. It does not explicitly describe refusal cases such as master-track protection, expected_before mismatches, or session_fingerprint guards, but those are fully covered by the parameter schema and annotations.

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 100%, and the schema already explains muted state semantics, zero-based track indexing, master refusal, expected_before, and session_fingerprint. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific action: set one track's mute state, and adds the readback-reporting behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mixer setters like fl_set_mixer_volume, fl_set_mixer_solo, or fl_set_mixer_pan because the resource and mutation target 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 implies this tool is used to set a track's mute state rather than toggle it, which gives the agent a usable context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over other mixer muting/state tools, so the usage guidance is mostly inferred rather than explicit.

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