tvh_create_dvr_rule

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — that rule times use Tvheadend's native units and that the class schema should be inspected first — but says nothing about permissions, duplicate-handling, or what happens on invalid settings.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by prerequisites and lifecycle pointers. No filler, though the schema-inspection instruction could be folded into the first sentence for tighter structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation profile. For a tool whose payload is an externally-defined schema, redirecting the agent to the class schema is the right completeness move; the remaining gap is that it doesn't name the specific tool to fetch that schema.

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 coverage is 0% and `settings` is a free-form object with additionalProperties, so the description must compensate. It does partially, by pointing at the dvr_autorec/dvr_timerec class schema and warning about native time units, but it never indicates which keys belong in `settings` or what `dry_run` does beyond its name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Create an automatic series/title rule or recurring timer' — and names the two underlying kinds (dvr_autorec/dvr_timerec). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like tvh_create_timer or tvh_schedule_recording, so a reader must infer that a DVR rule differs from a one-off timer.

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?

Gives explicit routing for the lifecycle: edit/disable via update_node, delete via delete_node, and a prerequisite to inspect the class schema first. It stops short of saying when to choose this over tvh_create_timer / tvh_schedule_recording, which is the main unresolved alternative.

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