tvh_schedule_recording

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds only the default-DVR-profile detail; it does not explain that a call creates a new timer/recording entry, that repeats may duplicate, or what the destructive effect actually touches (the DVR schedule).

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 action comes first and the config_uuid caveat second. It is efficient, though compression is partly achieved by omitting information rather than by tight phrasing.

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 destructive, non-idempotent scheduling tool with four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin: no event_id sourcing, no dry_run guidance, no duplicate-prevention warning. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but not the missing invocation context.

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 compensate, and it does so for only one of four parameters (config_uuid='' selects the default DVR profile). It never explains where a valid eventId comes from (e.g., tvh_search_epg), nor what dry_run or comment do, leaving three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Record an EPG eventId'), making the core action unambiguous. It does not differentiate this from siblings like tvh_create_timer or tvh_recording_action, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between scheduling a new recording and managing existing ones.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no mention of the dry_run preview path or when a pre-existing timer makes this call unnecessary (idempotentHint=false). The only guidance-like content is the config_uuid default behavior, which is really a parameter note.

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