track_unmute_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. It states the action (unmuting) but omits behavioral details such as whether changes are reversible, if the operation affects soloed tracks, error conditions when no project is open, or the nature of state persistence.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and scope, making it immediately scannable.

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 tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, simple state change), the description adequately covers the essential function. However, it could be improved by clarifying whether this operates on the current project context or requires an active selection.

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. According to the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this earns a default score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter 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 provides a specific verb (Unmute), resource (tracks), and scope (all in the project). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'track_mute' (singular) and 'track_mute_all' (inverse operation) through its naming and explicit scope.

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?

While the description implies usage through the phrase 'all tracks,' it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'track_mute' for individual tracks or whether it supersedes individual track mute states. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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