create_media_grabbers_devices_by_device_id_scan

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

Annotations already signal that this operation mutates state, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds the channel-scan action but does not explain whether the scan is asynchronous, how long it may run, or what side effects occur on the device. This is acceptable given the annotations, but it lacks additional behavioral nuance.

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 description is short and front-loads the action before the argument list, with no filler. The endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the name, but it does not hurt clarity. Overall it is concise and readable, though sparse.

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 core action is clear, and the output schema covers return values, but the source parameter is critically underspecified. An agent would not know what values are valid or that it can be omitted, which threatens correct invocation. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 define parameters. device_id is minimally explained, but source is only described as 'a valid source' with no format, allowed values, or origin. The description also fails to note that source is optional despite the schema showing a default of null, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 a specific action and object: 'Tell a device to scan for channels,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. The HTTP path reinforces the target resource, and this distinguishes the tool from siblings like creating or updating a device. No explicit sibling contrast is needed because the verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 alternatives such as update_media_grabbers_devices_by_device_id or delete_media_grabbers_devices_by_device_id_scan. The description provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this endpoint, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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