mute_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Mute or unmute') but doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether muting affects playback, recording, or monitoring), permissions needed, error conditions, or what the output schema returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.

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 extremely concise with zero wasted words. It opens with the core purpose, then lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure (purpose first, then args) is logical and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate context for basic use. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained here. However, for a mutation tool affecting audio/DAW state, more detail on behavior, side effects, and error handling would improve completeness.

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 description adds basic semantic context for both parameters ('track_number: Track number (1-based)' and 'muted: True to mute, False to unmute'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain constraints (e.g., valid track number ranges), default behavior (muted defaults to true per schema), or interaction effects. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 clearly states the verb ('Mute or unmute') and resource ('a track'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'set_track_volume' or 'solo_track' by focusing specifically on muting functionality. However, it doesn't specify what type of track (audio, MIDI, etc.) or context (DAW session, media player), leaving some 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a track must exist or be selected), compare with similar tools like 'solo_track', or indicate typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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