create_livetv_dvrs

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

The annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent creation operation, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not mention side effects, required context such as an existing lineup/device, or any caveats around the optional parameters.

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?

The structure is clean and front-loaded with 'Create a DVR,' followed by an endpoint and a simple Args list. However, the parameter lines add almost no informational value, so the entry is concise partly because it is under-specified rather than because every line 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?

For a creation operation with three undocumented optional parameters, the description leaves too much unknown: what values are valid, where those values come from, and what creating a DVR actually does. The output schema may describe the response, but it does not help an agent construct the request.

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, but 'lineup: The EPG lineup,' 'device: The device,' and 'language: The language' are near-tautological restatements of the property names. It omits value formats, how to obtain valid lineups/devices, language code conventions, and the expected shape of the device array.

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 opens with 'Create a DVR,' a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint 'POST /livetv/dvrs' confirms the target. It is distinguishable from the update/delete/list DVR siblings, though it never explains what a DVR represents or why someone would create one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id, delete_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id, or list_livetv_dvrs. No prerequisites or context are provided, so the only implied usage is that the agent already wants to create a DVR.

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