tvh_update_epg_config

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds useful scope by saying it writes global config and does not touch grabbers or XMLTV, and that the field set varies by build. But for a destructive, non-idempotent write it never warns about irreversibility, the dry_run escape hatch, or what state gets overwritten — the most important behavioral facts for an agent.

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 short lines, prerequisite first, exclusion last, no filler. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the prerequisite read is well covered. But for a destructive mutation over an opaque settings object, the missing dry_run guidance and the absence of any overwrite/irreversibility note leave 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 'settings' is a free-form object with no declared properties, so the description must compensate; it does partly by directing the agent to get_epg_config for the actual cron/OTA/save field names. However, the dry_run parameter is never explained at all, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 (Update) and resource (global EPG fields) and names the backing endpoint (epggrab/config/save), which separates it from read siblings like tvh_get_epg_config. It does not say concretely which globals are covered, leaving 'fields' abstract.

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 instructs 'Read get_epg_config first' and names the parameter source (cron/OTA/save fields), plus an exclusion: it does not install grabbers or upload XMLTV data. No mention of when to prefer tvh_assign_epg_sources or tvh_update_epg_module instead, so the routing is good but not complete.

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