delete_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id_reload_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is structurally covered. The description adds the state-change semantics ('stop reloading program guide'), which is consistent with those hints, but contributes no extra behavioral context such as side effects, permanence of the stop, or DVR state prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 tight: one-sentence purpose first, then the endpoint and argument. Information is front-loaded and there is zero filler. The endpoint line is redundant given the tool name but harmless and aids confirmation.

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 are covered structurally, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only meaningful gap is the absence of routing to the inverse sibling create_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id_reload_guide. For a one-parameter, well-annotated action, the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 burden. The Args section says 'dvr_id: The ID of the DVR,' which is minimal and largely restates the parameter name but does confirm that the integer identifies the target DVR. For a single required parameter this is adequate, though no guidance on how to discover valid DVR IDs (e.g., via list_livetv_dvrs) is provided.

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: 'Tell a DVR to stop reloading program guide.' The phrasing 'stop reloading' clearly contrasts with the sibling tool create_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id_reload_guide (start reloading), so an agent can distinguish this from its inverse without opening schemas. The DELETE endpoint is also included for confirmation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling create_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id_reload_guide is the likely start-reload counterpart, but the description never mentions it, nor does it state any conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use this tool. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the word 'stop.'

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