set_tv_address

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

Reveals a significant side effect beyond annotations: the TV's pairing key will be sent to the new address, which explains the destructive hint and justifies the user-confirmation requirement. It does not cover failure modes or whether the TV must be online, but adds valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a critical usage caveat, making it easy to scan and act on.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Annotations cover safety profile, and the description supplies the key operational context (when to call, what data is transmitted). Complete for a two-parameter update tool.

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%, and both parameters (name and host) have clear schema descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (paired TV's IP address) with a clear condition (after it changed). Distinguishes from siblings like pair_tv, list_tvs, and discover_tvs, which handle different lifecycle stages.

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 says 'only call this when the user confirms it is their TV,' giving a clear when-to-call guard. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., pair_tv for unpaired TVs or discover_tvs for finding TVs), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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