チャンネルを上げる

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects. It only states the core switching action and does not mention wrap-around behavior, ordering semantics, device-selection implications, or confirmation/return behavior.

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?

One short, front-loaded Japanese sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for such a simple action, though it sacrifices useful usage guidance for 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema action with only one optional parameter, the description is borderline sufficient but still thin: it doesn't state what 'next' means relative to the current channel, whether wrapping occurs, or how it differs from channel_down/set_channel. An agent choosing among the many channel siblings would need more context.

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 100% for the single optional device parameter, and the schema already explains the default resolution. The description adds nothing about device semantics, but it doesn't need to; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('切り替える' – switch) and resource ('チャンネル' – channel), and the qualifier '次の' distinguishes it from channel_down (previous channel) and set_channel (specific channel). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of the strongest standard.

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?

No mention of when to use channel_up versus channel_down or set_channel. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing context, so an agent must infer usage from the name and the word 'next'.

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