pair_tv

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only and has destructive potential. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the operation is asynchronous, returns immediately, requires a human to accept on the TV with a remote, and must be followed by polling pair_tv_status. It does not explain the destructive overwrite behavior (covered by the replace parameter and destructiveHint).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 need not be described. The description covers the asynchronous initiation and required follow-up polling, which are critical for correct invocation. Minor edge cases (timeouts, already-paired behavior) are left to the schema and annotations.

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 100%, so every parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource ("Start pairing with a TV") and explains the core interaction (prompt on TV, remote acceptance). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pair_tv_status by naming it as the follow-up poll target.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool's role as the initiation step and points the agent to pair_tv_status for subsequent polling. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it (e.g., if already paired) or name alternative approaches beyond the polling sibling.

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