atv_open_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load. It discloses that tvOS routes the link, that YouTube links may require a human confirmation, and that Netflix links are unreliable since a specific update. These are meaningful behavioral caveats beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling or what happens when the app isn't installed, so it stops short of total transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then presents a structured list of working URL shapes. Each line serves a purpose: explaining routing, giving formats, and flagging issues. It is longer than minimal but not bloated—every sentence adds functional information.

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 description covers the primary use case and known reliability issues, which is good. However, it omitss any explanation of the device parameter, which is central to operating on the correct Apple TV. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the app must be installed) or error behavior. Since an output schema exists, some return details are presumably covered, but the device gap remains.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides extensive examples for the url parameter, clarifying acceptable formats, but it says nothing about the device parameter—its purpose or how to use it. Given that the device parameter is optional but present, this is a noticeable gap that leaves the agent guessing.

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, specific action: 'Open a deep link on the Apple TV' and explains it is 'The way to pull up a specific movie or episode directly.' This distinguishes it from siblings like atv_play or atv_watch, which likely handle content differently. It also provides concrete URL patterns for multiple services, leaving no doubt about the tool's scope.

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?

It conveys the intended use case well—direct deep-link navigation—and lists supported URL shapes, which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'for direct links use this, for remote control use atv_remote'), nor does it state when not to use it. It does mention limitations (Netflix unreliable), which partially covers edge cases.

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