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

Annotations declare the safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent, not read-only), but the description adds no behavioral context such as permission requirements, partial update semantics, or what happens to unspecified fields. It only restates the update action.

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 redundant information. Slight filler in 'This endpoint allows you to', but otherwise efficiently structured.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters including a nested player_config object, but the description covers only three non-nested fields and entirely omits player_config. Although an output schema exists, the description leaves the agent without a complete picture of what can be updated.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description only echoes a subset (title, channel_visibility, position) without adding format, default, or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'update' and resource 'playlist', and names three updatable aspects: name, channel visibility, and order. It distinguishes from create/delete/get playlist siblings, but omits the player_config update capability that is a major part of the schema.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reorder_asset_playlist or create_playlist, no prerequisites, and no conditions for use. Only an implied purpose from the name.

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