track_mute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the muting/unmuting behavior, the default mute value, and the critical 0-based track index convention. It does not mention side effects like undo behavior or whether playback is affected, but for a simple setter this is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a wrapper clarification, and a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter wrapper, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the operation, both parameters, the default, and the crucial track indexing caveat; no output schema or further details are necessary.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: track is 0-based, follows track_set_properties convention, and is NOT the 'id' field from project_get_info/track_get_info; mute is True/False with a default of True. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mute or unmute a track by index.' It clearly differentiates itself from the broader track_set_properties tool by calling itself a 'Convenience wrapper over track_set_properties' mute parameter,' and the singular 'by index' distinguishes it from track_mute_all.

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 clear usage context by identifying this as a convenience wrapper over track_set_properties' mute parameter, implying it is the simpler choice for single-track mute/unmute operations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like track_mute_all, so it falls short of a 5.

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