apple_tv_open_url

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a success only means the launch request was accepted, not that a screen is visible, and uncertain deliveries are deliberately not retried because of playback side effects. That side-effect and retry-semantics disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two caveats that matter. No filler, though the sentences are line-broken in a way that reads slightly disjointed rather than as a single tight block.

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 need no explanation, and the description correctly manages expectations about what success means. The one remaining gap is the absence of any pointer to apple_tv_open_app for the non-deep-link case, which matters in a 13-tool sibling set.

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% and the single url parameter is documented as accepting custom schemes. The description adds no format examples or scheme constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (open a URL or application deep link on the Apple TV), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent sibling apple_tv_open_app, so an agent must infer the URL-vs-app distinction from the parameter name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The note about deep links not being retried is a behavioral caveat rather than routing guidance, and the agent is never told to prefer apple_tv_open_app for plain app launches.

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