set_track_mute

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful context (track_index is 1-based, return tracks come after session tracks, mute semantics for the boolean). However, it omits details about error behavior, invalid index handling, or whether this affects live/stopped playback, which matters for a mutation 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 tight: a one-line purpose statement followed by compact parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter bullet points duplicate what could theoretically live in the schema had it been richer.

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 2-parameter setter with an output schema present, the description covers the core semantics adequately. The main gaps are lack of usage scenarios and error/edge-case behavior, but for low complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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% with bare type-only schema entries, so the description does the heavy lifting. It clarifies track_index is 1-based with specific ordering semantics, and explains the mute boolean's true/false meaning. This meaningfully compensates for the minimal 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Mute or unmute a track') that clearly identifies the action and target. It's distinguishable from siblings like set_track_volume and set_track_panning, though it doesn't explicitly call out how it differs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like set_track_volume or set_track_arm. There's no when/when-not context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives anywhere in the description.

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