shield_remote

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond structured data — playback buttons are gated on permission and write mode — but does not explain what is destroyed, whether allow_during_playback bypasses the gate, or any rate/confirmation behavior.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the precondition second. Every clause earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema removes any need to describe return values. Still, for a destructive, permission-gated remote-control tool with zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves key operational details (the allow_during_playback flag, what the destructive hint applies to) 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%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters. The button enum self-documents its values, but 'allow_during_playback' is never mentioned, and the description's 'write mode' wording does not clarify how that flag interacts with the gating rule.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Send one explicit remote button'), making the action unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the many shield_*/kodi_* siblings, but the purpose itself is clear 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?

'Send one explicit remote button' implies single-action usage, and 'Playback controls require permission and write mode' gives a real precondition. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as shield_status or the kodi_* controls, leaving routing to inference.

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