tvh_mux_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a little by indicating the read returns enum/metadata content rather than live tuner state, but says nothing about whether an unknown UUID errors, what the payload volume is, or caching. Adequate but thin given the annotated baseline.

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 filler; the key noun phrase ('network-specific mux fields') leads. Nothing to cut.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the tool takes one required parameter, so the description is close to sufficient. What is missing is the purpose behind the call – i.e., that these field/enum definitions are what you consult before constructing a mux or tuning-parameter payload via tvh_create_mux.

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% and the single parameter network_uuid has no description or format in the schema. The description only indirectly hints at its role via 'network-specific', giving no indication of whether it is a UUID, integer, or name, nor what happens if it does not exist. The description therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: reading network-specific mux fields, tuning parameters and modulation/FEC enums. That is far more concrete than a tautology and tells an agent what kind of data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like tvh_get_schema or tvh_get_field_options, so an agent cannot tell which schema-style tool to pick without guessing.

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 at all: no mention of prerequisites, no exclusion of alternatives, and no hint about which task (creating a mux, updating tuning parameters) would prompt this call. The closest thing to guidance is the word 'network-specific', which implies per-network scoping but not a call condition.

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