trigger_media_input_action

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the action types and does not mention side effects, error behavior, or whether the tool modifies persistent state. 'Trigger' implies an effect, but the description does not detail what happens upon success/failure or whether permissions are required.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary verb phrase, and then a brief parameter list. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter action tool, the description covers the purpose, parameter meanings, and allowed values. However, it omits any mention of return values, prerequisites (e.g., the media source must be a media input), or typical use cases. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds crucial meaning by defining 'input_name' as 'Name of the media input' and, more importantly, enumerates the valid values for 'action' (PLAY, PAUSE, STOP, RESTART, NEXT, PREVIOUS). This fills the gap left by the bare schema types.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Trigger a transport action on a media source.' It enumerates the specific allowed actions (play, pause, stop, restart, next, previous), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_media_input_status or set_media_input_cursor that query or seek rather than control transport.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool (to control media playback via transport actions) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the sibling list includes other media-related tools, some explicit guidance would elevate this dimension beyond a minimum viable score.

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