set_clip_muted

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the primary effect (mute/unmute) but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether this affects playback, if it resets any parameters, or error handling like invalid indices).

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 line for purpose and a clear parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 setter tool, the description covers the core functionality. However, given the complex domain (Ableton Live) and many sibling tools, it lacks context about clip existence, index bounds, or return values (though output schema exists). It is minimally complete.

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?

Parameter explanations are given for all three required parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema property names. For example, 'track_index: The track index (0-based)' clarifies the range and type. With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable, though it could mention how to obtain these indices.

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 it mutes or unmutes a clip, directly matching the tool name 'set_clip_muted'. The verb 'Mute or unmute' is specific and resource-oriented, and there are no sibling tools that perform the same action (e.g., stop_clip, set_track_mute are different).

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 like stop_clip or set_track_mute. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., the clip must exist, indices must be valid) or context when muting is appropriate.

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