tvh_scan_networks

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint/openWorldHint/idempotent=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is asynchronous and returns immediately, and it consumes tuner capacity, which implies contention with live viewing/recording. It does not explain what a rescan does to existing services on the mux (the destructive aspect), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the async contract, then monitoring, then the single-mux alternative. No filler; the final clause "with its schema's scan_state" is slightly terse but still parseable.

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 no explanation, and the async/monitoring story is covered. However, for a destructive, tuner-consuming mutation, the absence of any dry_run guidance or UUID sourcing leaves a real gap.

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 the description does not mention dry_run at all, nor where network UUIDs come from or what format they take. "Selected networks" only loosely maps to network_uuids, so the agent gets no help on the one parameter that could make this a safe operation.

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 ("Queue a service scan for selected networks") and immediately fixes the scope with "returns immediately." It also separates itself from the single-mux path by naming update_node, so the agent can tell the bulk tool from the singular one.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for selected networks in bulk, use update_node for a single mux. It also names the monitoring calls (list_networks.scanq_length, list_muxes.scan_state/scan_result), so selection and follow-up are both specified.

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