apple_tv_adjust_volume

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing retry semantics ('Relative steps are not retried after uncertain failure'), which the agent cannot learn from 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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the core relative-adjustment purpose is front-loaded and the retry caveat follows immediately.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, a complete annotation set, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only omission is an explicit pointer to apple_tv_set_volume for absolute volume changes.

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 100%, so both the 'steps' and 'direction' parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description's phrase 'Relative steps' reinforces the semantics but adds no range, default, or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Nudge volume up or down') and makes the relative nature of the operation clear, distinguishing it in spirit from the absolute-scaling sibling apple_tv_set_volume. However, it never names that sibling, so the differentiation relies on the agent inferring 'nudge' vs 'set'.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Nudge' and 'Relative steps', which suggests this is for incremental changes rather than absolute levels, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or mention of apple_tv_set_volume as the alternative for setting a specific level.

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