cw_set_track_mute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the implementation mechanism (a real click on the track strip's mute button), explains why (SONAR's accessibility actions are inert), and says `verified` is derived from reading the value back. Those details materially affect whether an agent can trust the result and what preconditions matter.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the mechanism/preconditions after it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description covers mechanism, trust signal (`verified`), and preconditions, which is nearly everything needed. The remaining gap is that it does not define how to identify the target track via `index`.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the `mute` boolean through the verb, but never explains `index` — not that it is a track index, nor that it is 1-based per the schema minimum. The most important parameter for calling this correctly is left to guesswork.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource pair (mute/unmute a track), which is immediately distinguishable from other track-state siblings like cw_set_track_solo or cw_set_track_arm. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, so it falls short of a 5.

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 final sentence states concrete preconditions: a project must be open and the track must be visible in the Track view. That is clear usage context, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives for when another tool (e.g. a command-based path) would be preferable.

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