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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two surprising behaviors: the `menu` vs `home` semantics on tvOS 27, and the fact that a press lands on whatever has focus without feedback, with the recommendation to screenshot first. This is beyond just 'presses a button' and adds critical behavioral context for correct invocation.

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 paragraph but well-structured: starts with the core action, then the parameter explanation, then the behavioral surprises. Each sentence serves a purpose, though it is slightly lengthy. The key warnings are front-loaded within the second sentence, which is acceptable given their importance.

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's moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary information: what buttons exist, how action modifies them, and the critical behavioral caveats. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without further clarification, making it 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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the `button` parameter's enum (e.g., what each button means) and clarifies `action` as a modifier for double tap or hold. It reinforces the default for `action` but doesn't repeat schema details; it adds enough to help an agent pick the right button values.

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 'press' with the specific resource 'Apple TV remote' and enumerates the buttons (d-pad, select, menu, home, playback/volume). It distinguishes itself from other device input tools (e.g., ios_tv_swipe, ios_tv_volume) by focusing on button presses, so an agent can confidently select this tool over alternatives.

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 provides usage guidance by contrasting `menu` vs `home` behavior: 'menu pops a navigation stack, so it does NOT leave an app that was launched programmatically — home does.' It also advises taking a screenshot before pressing select due to focus ambiguity, which is a specific when-to-use and caution. No explicit exclusions, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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