mute_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't mention that this is a destructive/mutative operation, what permissions are required, whether the effect is reversible, what happens to notifications or interactions, or any rate limits. The single phrase provides zero behavioral context.

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 at just three words, which is appropriate for a simple action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.

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 mutative tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a single parameter, the description is completely inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to address the tool's purpose differentiation, usage context, behavioral implications, or parameter meaning - all critical gaps for a tool that modifies user state.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'user_id' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter - no format requirements, no examples, no explanation of what constitutes a valid user ID. While there's only one parameter, the description fails to provide any semantic clarification.

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 'Mute a user' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it clearly identifies the action (mute) and target (user), it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'unmute_user' or explain what muting entails beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'unmute_user' tool, nor does it indicate prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or any exclusions for when muting might not be applicable.

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