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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it explains the 202 means an asynchronous request was accepted, not confirmed playback, and that repetition advances again. It stops short of saying what happens to the currently playing item or whether auth/permission is needed.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the behavior before the API-level detail. The endpoint-mirroring clause is marginally incidental for an agent, but the async/202 sentence that follows it is high value.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the async semantics and ordering behavior. It is nearly complete for a 2-parameter tool, leaving only error/precondition behavior on a non-active stream unspecified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for the 'type' enum by noting that 'video' and 'external-videos' share the video player, which is not captured by the schema's flat enum list.

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 (skip) and resource (item on an active stream) plus the key constraint 'without restarting it'. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_stream_queue and add_to_stream_queue/remove_from_stream_queue, which manipulate the queue rather than advancing playback.

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?

'On an active stream' establishes the precondition, and 'repeating the command can skip another item' tells the agent it is re-invokable to advance multiple times. It does not name an alternative (e.g. play_stream_queue_item for jumping to a specific item) or state what to do when the stream is inactive, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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