tvh_trigger_epg_grab

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: collection is asynchronous, delay limits differ for OTA vs. internal grabbers, and external XMLTV imports are excluded.

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 and compact: the main action and asynchronous behavior are stated first, followed by timing constraints and the external XMLTV exclusion. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 output schema and annotations already cover return shape and safety profile, so the description does not need to explain those. It supplies the key async and timing context, but leaves dry_run semantics unstated, which is a noticeable gap for a destructive trigger operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does meaningful work by explaining the kind distinction and delay constraints, including the internal-grabber requirement that delay must be 1. However, it does not explain dry_run at all, leaving one of the three parameters undocumented in both schema text 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 uses a specific verb and resource: queueing/rerunning EPG collection, with a clear OTA vs. internal grabber distinction. It also excludes external XMLTV socket imports, which helps separate it from adjacent EPG tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives clear usage context for OTA collection vs. rerunning enabled internal grabbers, including the key exclusion that external XMLTV socket imports are not triggered. It lacks explicit routing guidance to sibling tools, but the when-to-use conditions are otherwise clear.

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