tv_play

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose non-obvious automatic behaviors: deep linking, force-stops, and automatic profile selection. However, it does not warn that force-stopping may interrupt currently running apps or that the TV may need to be powered on.

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?

Three short sentences cover the core action, automatic behaviors, and supported content types without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes useful information and the most important verb-resource pair is front-loaded.

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 content playback tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it: what it does, what content types it supports, and key automatic behaviors. It could mention failure or status behavior, but that is less critical for a fire-and-play command.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the title, music, profile, and service parameters well. The description adds only a generic reference to automatic profile selection, which adds little beyond the structured definitions.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Search for and play content on the TV.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning automatic deep linking, force-stops, and profile selection, which separates it from tv_search, tv_app, and other TV control tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('Use for shows, movies, and music') and states the scope of what the tool handles. It does not explicitly contrast with tv_search for search-only requests or tv_app for direct app launching, but the intent is reasonably clear.

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