tvh_map_services

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

The annotations already disclose that this is destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the underlying service/mapper/save endpoint, the absence of a mapper/start API, empty-selection rejection, and recommended post-call monitoring.

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 description is front-loaded, compact, and structured around purpose, implementation detail, validation behavior, and follow-up monitoring. Every sentence provides actionable information without excessive verbosity.

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?

The tool has annotations and an output schema, reducing the description's burden for safety and return-value documentation. The description covers the main operational flow and post-call monitoring, though it could more fully explain the options object and dry_run behavior.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains service_uuids as explicit service UUIDs and lists several options fields, but it omits dry_run entirely and uses 'etc.' rather than fully documenting the options object.

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: starting Tvheadend's native service-to-channel mapper for explicit service UUIDs. This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools such as tvh_mapper_status, tvh_stop_mapper, and tvh_list_services.

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 explains that the tool is for explicit service UUIDs, that empty selections are rejected, and that mapper_status and list_channels should be monitored afterwards. It does not explicitly compare itself with alternatives like tvh_assign_services, but the operational context is clear.

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