track_unmute_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 clearly reveals the key behavioral trait: the operation applies to every track, including unselected ones, not just the current selection. This is precisely the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then clarifies the full scope. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool, the description is fully sufficient. It states the exact action ('unmute'), the exact scope ('every track in the project'), and an important behavioral caveat ('including any not currently selected'). No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% schema coverage, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description adds meaningful context about the operation's scope even though there are no params to document. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Unmute') with a clear resource ('every track in the project') and clarifies scope with 'including any not currently selected.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like track_mute and track_mute_all, which perform mute operations.

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 states clear context: this tool unmutes all tracks in the project regardless of current selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a zero-parameter action the usage is evident. The mention of unselected tracks implies this is the tool to use when selection should be ignored.

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