tvh_assign_networks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: 'add' preserves existing assignments, 'replace' replaces them, and 'remove' removes only the listed networks. It does not explain dry_run or permission requirements.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the core action, then moves efficiently into DVB-C/T vs DVB-S guidance and mode behavior. Four sentences with little waste, though 'network_a/network_aa etc.' is slightly vague and could be tighter.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers field and mode well but omits dry_run, which matters for a destructive operation because an agent may not realize it can preview changes.

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 must carry the burden. It clarifies field selection (frontend.networks vs satellite input nodes), mode semantics for add/replace/remove, and implicitly what hardware_uuid and network_uuids mean. The dry_run parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of five parameters unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Assign networks') and adds scope ('to the exact frontend or satellite-input node that owns the field'). It is clearly distinct from tvh_assign_services by resource, but it does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast with one, which keeps it below a 5.

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 concrete conditional guidance: 'For DVB-C/T use frontend.networks' versus 'For DVB-S inspect the hardware tree' where fields like network_a/network_aa may live. It also says to use field options to match supported network types. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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