tv_playback

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world action, and the description adds real context beyond that: only a single key is sent per call, the outcome is not guaranteed, and session metadata is returned so the agent can verify. The 'no playback guarantee' caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral warning annotations cannot express.

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?

One tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and the caveat trailing — no wasted words. It is slightly cryptic in its use of 'media key' without expanding it, which keeps it from being maximally clear.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The description covers the key non-obvious behaviors (single action, unguaranteed result, metadata returned), leaving only the sibling distinction unaddressed.

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%, but the single parameter is a self-explanatory enum of media actions. The description compensates partially by stating only one action may be sent and that it must be explicitly requested, yet it adds no per-value nuance (e.g. what play_pause does when already playing).

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: dispatch one media key and return session metadata. The 'one ... key' phrasing also communicates the single-action scope. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not (tv_playback_status), so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 requested' implies the agent should only fire this on direct user instruction, which is useful when-to-use guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not or routing to tv_playback_status for read-only checks, despite that sibling existing and clearly overlapping with 'read session metadata'.

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