tvh_plan_network_consolidation

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world preview. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: tuner inputs are reassigned, mapped services are replaced only on unique ONID/TSID/SID matches, source networks are disabled in the proposed plan, and certain mismatches block execution. The only minor ambiguity is that 'disable source networks' could sound mutating, but the leading 'Preview migration' makes the preview-only intent clear.

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 with the core purpose and constraints, and every sentence adds relevant planning or blocking information. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 complex consolidation-planning operation, the description covers the important behavioral constraints and blockers, and an output schema exists so return-value explanation is not required. The remaining gap is mostly explicit parameter-role documentation, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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 explanatory burden. It provides some semantics by referring to an existing target network and plural source networks to be consolidated, but it does not explicitly map target_uuid and source_uuids to those roles or clarify UUID formatting and scope.

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 action and resource: previewing a migration/consolidation into an existing scanned DVB network while preserving channel UUIDs. It is clear enough to distinguish this from general network updates, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling alternatives such as channel merge or apply-plan tools.

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 implies when the tool is appropriate by describing the preview/planning scenario and listing blockers such as different delivery systems, satellite positions, and missing unique matches. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like tvh_plan_channel_merge, tvh_assign_services, or tvh_apply_maintenance_plan.

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