cdeck_pair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that names are local labels with a default of 'tv' and that distinct names matter for multiple TVs, but says nothing about failure modes, whether pairing persists across sessions, network/prerequisite requirements, or whether re-pairing replaces an existing entry.

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?

Two sentences, the action and its input front-loaded, followed by the only non-obvious parameter caveat. No filler.

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 explained, and both params are described. But with zero annotations and no behavioral notes on persistence, idempotency, or errors, the agent lacks information needed to recover from a failed pairing or decide whether to re-pair.

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: `code` is characterized as the 6-character code shown on the TV, and `name` as a local label defaulting to 'tv' with guidance to use distinct names for multiple TVs. That covers both parameters meaningfully, though it doesn't state code format constraints beyond length.

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 and resource — pairing with an Apple TV using a 6-character code — and is immediately distinguishable from the sibling set (cdeck_unpair, cdeck_push, cdeck_list). An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Implies the precondition that the TV must be displaying a pairing code, which is real usage context. It doesn't route the agent away from alternatives (e.g., when to use cdeck_unpair or cdeck_status instead), but for a single-purpose pairing tool the context is clear.

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