change_input

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

The description 'switch to a different input' is vague and does not disclose that the tool cycles through inputs (as implied by the 'steps' parameter). No annotations exist to compensate, leaving behavior ambiguous.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be restructured to include key details without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks completeness by not explaining that input selection is cyclic. This omission could lead to incorrect agent behavior.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the 'steps' parameter. While schema coverage is 100%, the description omits any explanation of how the parameter affects input cycling, reducing its utility.

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 clearly states the action ('switch to a different input') and resource ('TV'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_state' or 'volume', which operate on different aspects of the TV.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., TV must be on) or exclusions (e.g., not for direct input selection).

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