track_mute_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple action statement by explaining that it uses a dedicated C++ command iterating the real track list by id, and why the alternative approach would silently affect the wrong track when label tracks are present. This is rich, non-obvious 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 compact: one clear opening sentence stating the action, followed by a dense but relevant technical note explaining why this tool exists rather than being emulated via track_set_properties. Every sentence earns its place, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the exact effect, scope, and an important implementation risk, making the definition contextually complete for this simple operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already provides 100% coverage by defining an empty object. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds nothing further about parameters because there is nothing to clarify.

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 every track in the project, including any not currently selected.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-track muting operations like track_mute and from track_set_properties by emphasizing the project-wide 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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (when muting every track, including unselected ones) and explicitly warns against using track_set_properties as a substitute, explaining the index-based addressing pitfall. This gives the agent both a positive and negative usage signal.

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