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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral subtlety: the reported power state is read back after the call and may be stale because the box can report off while the screensaver is still showing. This is genuine behavioral transparency beyond the schema.

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 two tight sentences. It front-loads the core action, then adds the critical disambiguation and read-back caveat without any redundant content.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the core guidance is present: what the tool does, how 'off' should be interpreted, and that the reported state is read after the call. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not detail return value shape or pairing prerequisites.

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%, with udid and state already described ('on = wake, off = sleep'). The description reinforces the off/sleep distinction but adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Wake an Apple TV or put it to sleep.' This makes the tool's function unambiguous and clearly separates it from control siblings like ios_tv_button or status tools like ios_tv_status, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended when-to-use is reasonably implied by 'Wake an Apple TV or put it to sleep.' The description offers semantic disambiguation ('off' is sleep, not a power cut) but does not mention any exclusion conditions or compare against other TV tools.

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