Set program

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that the call narrows the tuner to one program, but says nothing about whether it interrupts an in-flight stream, whether it needs a lockkey, or what error conditions exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. The markdown-quoted endpoint path is mildly jargon-heavy but does anchor the operation to the device's HTTP surface.

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?

This is a mutation with no output schema, no documented parameters, and no annotations covering side effects. The description does not state what changes on the tuner, whether the change persists, or what a caller should expect afterward — significant gaps for a two-parameter write tool.

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% across two required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only implies that 'tuner' indexes /tuner<n>/ and that program_number is a sub-channel value; it gives no format for the integer-or-string union (e.g. '5.1' vs 5), no valid ranges, and no indexing base.

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?

Names a specific verb (set) and resource (the tuner's program filter), and clarifies that 'program' means a sub-channel number. However it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like hdhomerun_set_channel or hdhomerun_set_filter, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., lockkey/auth, an active tuner), and no mention of how this differs from hdhomerun_set_channel or hdhomerun_set_filter. The agent is left to infer the workflow context entirely.

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