track_mute_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Mute' implies a state-modifying operation, but the description omits whether this action is reversible (via track_unmute_all), idempotent, or what happens when no tracks exist. It meets the minimum by stating the action but lacks 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 consists of a single efficient sentence with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter schema and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, for a state-modifying action, it could enhance completeness by mentioning reversibility via 'track_unmute_all' or noting that this affects the entire project 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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rules. The description requires no parameter clarification, though it correctly implies no filtering or selection criteria are needed.

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 provides a specific verb ('Mute') and clear scope ('all tracks in the project'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'track_mute' which likely targets specific tracks. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 usage through the phrase 'all tracks,' suggesting use when global muting is needed versus individual track muting. However, it lacks explicit guidance such as 'To mute specific tracks, use track_mute instead' or mention of the complementary 'track_unmute_all' tool.

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