apple_tv_power

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reports the observed power state, but says nothing about whether it waits for the state to settle, what happens on failure, or any device-permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the reporting behavior are both stated economically and nothing is padded.

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 not be spelled out, and the lone parameter is fully documented. The definition is nearly sufficient, with the only gap being the absence of any note on how the observed state is confirmed or what failure looks like.

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 'state' parameter is documented with a PowerTarget type. The description's 'on or off' mirrors the enum rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: it sets the Apple TV power state and reports the observed result, which is clear and distinct from the sibling apple_tv_status (read-only) and playback/volume tools. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with apple_tv_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to apple_tv_status for reading only. Usage is only implied by the 'on or off' phrasing, leaving the agent to guess whether this is preferable to apple_tv_status for state queries.

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