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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the URL is unchanged so the player keeps playing, i.e. the stream endpoint survives the jump. It does not say what is lost (playback position, queued track), so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 what happens, then when to use it, then the user-visible effect. Every sentence adds distinct information with no padding.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description covers the essentials: what changes, when to invoke, and that the listening URL is stable. The one gap is the fate of the current track/queue at the moment of the jump, which an agent might want to set expectations around.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema carries no semantic burden and the description need not document inputs. Nothing about the (empty) parameter set is misrepresented.

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 jumps an already-running stream to fresh music from the same playlist. It implicitly contrasts with start_stream (stream must already be running) but never names that sibling or any other, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: use it when the current material has worn out but the channel is still right. That is clear context for when to call it, but it offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., versus start_stream or regenerate_similar).

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