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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the overwrite behavior and, importantly, that omitted tracks are removed from the album rather than deleted — which usefully clarifies the destructiveHint=false annotation. It stops short of mentioning dry_run's effect or any auth/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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the non-obvious removal semantics are stated upfront. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of side effects, the description supplies the key behavioral facts (full replacement, non-deletion). It omits any mention of dry_run (available in schema) and permission context, leaving minor gaps.

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 75% and already documents artist, dry_run, and 'In running order' for track_ids. The description restates the ordering semantics and implies album_id is the target album, but adds little the schema does not already carry, so 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 a specific verb+resource ('Put these tracks on this album') plus the defining scope ('in this order'), which matches the title's 'running order'. No sibling tool overlaps this operation, so no disambiguation is needed, and an agent can tell exactly what it does from the first sentence.

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 phrase 'Replaces whatever was on it' implies the usage condition (use it to fully rewrite the album's order rather than append), but it never explicitly states when to use this vs. alternatives like update_album or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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