update_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id_prefs

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

Annotations already provide the key behavioral signals: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds an HTTP method and resource path but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. It does not contradict the annotations.

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-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter list. It has no filler or repetition, though the 'value' argument description is somewhat weak. Overall, it is appropriately compact.

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 small setter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource, method, and arguments, but it does not explain important invocation edge cases such as whether name and value can be omitted, what preference keys are valid, or how the operation affects an existing preference.

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 of explaining parameters. It gives a basic explanation for each parameter, but 'value: Preference value to set' is largely tautological and the description does not clarify valid preference names or value formats. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves significant ambiguity.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Set DVR preferences.' The included endpoint, 'PUT /livetv/dvrs/{dvrId}/prefs', makes the target resource unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by the 'DVR preferences' scope, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus other DVR-related or preferences-related siblings. The description simply states what the tool does and lists arguments, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context.

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