apple_tv_skip

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: relative skips are not retried after uncertain failure. That retry/failure semantic is not derivable from the annotations or schema and materially affects how an agent should handle errors.

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, purpose front-loaded and the caveat second. No wasted words.

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 explained, and the retry caveat covers the main behavioral risk. However, with apple_tv_seek as a direct sibling, the definition never clarifies which one to call, leaving a real routing gap.

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 parameters are already documented, including that seconds=0 lets the device pick a default. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Skip forward or backward') and the phrase 'Relative skips' signals this is a relative-position operation. It does not explicitly name apple_tv_seek as the absolute-position alternative, so the sibling distinction is only implied.

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 guidance and no mention of apple_tv_seek, the obvious alternative for absolute jumps. The agent must infer the relative-vs-absolute split from the word 'Relative' alone.

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