Set lineup location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation status is known. The description adds the value format but says nothing about what the change affects (channels, lineup, recordings), whether it needs device auth, or that it must be followed by a lineup refresh. Worse, the 'disabled' option it advertises is unimplementable given both parameters are 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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the backtick/endpoint notation front-loads implementation detail instead of the action, making it read as an API note rather than an instruction.

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 write tool with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and openWorldHint=true, the description should explain the effect of the change and any auth/refresh requirements. It leaves an agent unable to know what a successful call changes on the device or how to recover.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries real weight, and it does clarify that the two bare parameters are a country code and a postcode. However, it presents them as a single colon-joined string, which contradicts the schema's two separate required fields, and gives no format guidance (ISO 3166? postal code style?).

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 underlying endpoint (``/lineup/location``) and the value format, so the resource is inferable, but it never states in plain language that this configures the device's broadcast lineup region. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling hdhomerun_disable_lineup_location, which plausibly covers the 'disabled' case it mentions.

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 parenthetical 'or set to "disabled"' hints at an alternative mode but gives no condition for when to use this tool versus hdhomerun_disable_lineup_location, hdhomerun_set_channelmap, or hdhomerun_get_lineup_status. There is no statement of prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance.

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