mute_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic toggle behavior on a whole track but doesn't disclose what happens to clips on the track, whether existing keyframes or automation are preserved, whether there is any return value, or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately and holds no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 state-toggle operation with all parameters fully documented in the schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could add context such as whether the operation returns anything or whether it affects automation keyframes. Given the simplicity of the operation, the gaps are minor.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (muted, sequenceId, trackIndex). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb pair (mutes/unmutes) and a specific resource (entire audio track). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lock_track (locks, doesn't mute), toggle_track_visibility, and set_clip_volume (per-clip, not track-level).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_volume, lock_track, or toggle_track_visibility. The description states what it does but not the conditions that select it over its siblings, such as 'use for track-wide muting rather than per-clip volume.'

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