Set channelmap

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds only example values, not the behavior an agent needs: whether the change persists, whether it disrupts active tuners, or whether device auth/lineup is required.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded with the resource and value examples. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimized brevity.

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 an undocumented 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits what the change affects, whether it persists, and how to select the tuner, leaving meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the load: it supplies concrete channelmap value examples (us-bcast/us-cable/us-hrc/us-irc) and the tuner<n> notation hints tuner is an index. But it leaves tuner range/selection and validation rules unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names the endpoint (/tuner<n>/channelmap 'set') and gives example channelmap values, so an agent can infer it sets a tuner's channelmap. However, the purpose is conveyed through cryptic endpoint notation rather than a plain-language verb+resource statement, and it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling hdhomerun_set_channel or hdhomerun_get_channelmap.

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 change the channelmap versus when to tune a channel (set_channel) or read the current map (get_channelmap). No prerequisites, persistence behavior, or conditions are stated.

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