set_clip_mute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about persistence, whether the change is undoable, permission/state requirements, or whether muting is a non-destructive playback-only flag. Only the mute/unmute toggle semantic is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or caveats. It is appropriately sized for a simple setter, though the parenthetical '(disable)' borders on redundant.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a partial parameter description, the definition says far too little about state prerequisites, side effects, or expected behavior. An agent knows the intent but not the operating conditions.

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 67%: clipIndex and trackIndex are documented (0-based, A1=0, cross-referenced to get_timeline_clips), while the muted boolean is self-evident. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema does most of the work, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb pair (mute/unmute) and a specific resource (an audio clip), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as set_track_muted or set_clip_enabled, leaving that differentiation to the name and the word 'audio'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than set_track_muted (whole track) or set_clip_enabled (clip enable/disable), nor any prerequisite such as an open sequence or valid indices. The agent must infer the correct tool purely from the name.

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