tvh_update_epg_module

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the description's job is to add the missing context — yet it never warns that settings overwrite existing module state, doesn't explain what dry_run previews, and says nothing about permissions or reversibility. 'Configure' is non-contradictory but behaviorally empty for a destructive mutation.

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, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance given the low schema coverage.

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?

Contextual completeness: a destructive mutation with a free-form settings object and a dry_run flag, but the description never says where to obtain the field schema (e.g. tvh_list_epg_modules / tvh_get_field_options) or what dry_run returns. For a 0%-coverage schema this leaves the agent unable to call it correctly without exploration.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't: module_uuid is never explained, dry_run is never mentioned, and the free-form 'settings' object (additionalProperties: true) gets only a vague 'live fields' hint plus two example keys. 'Live fields' is the sole useful signal — the agent still doesn't know the key vocabulary.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Configure an installed grabber module' clearly identifies a mutation on an existing EPG grabber module, distinct from tvh_list_epg_modules (read) and tvh_update_epg_config (global config). It gives concrete example fields (enabled/priority), though it never names a sibling to route away from.

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?

'Configure an installed grabber module' plus 'using its live fields' implies this applies only to already-installed modules and that field names should come from live module data, but there are no explicit when/when-not statements nor any mention of when to set dry_run=true.

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