teaser_playlist

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully signals create-or-update semantics ('make or top up'), playlist contents, ordering, and naming, but does not mention Spotify auth requirements, side effects on an existing playlist, failure behavior, or rate limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the alternative and special-case instruction. No wasted text.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, filtering, ordering, naming, the sibling alternative, and the NO_REPLY special case. It does not describe what the tool returns, but the gap is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 would be 3, but the description adds meaning by showing that date and artist drive both the playlist name ('YYYY-MM-DD | Artist') and the song selection ('liked by the artist'). That is useful semantics beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: make or top up a Spotify teaser playlist for one concert. It defines the exact contents, ordering, and naming convention, and explicitly distinguishes itself from concert_add.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: concert_add already does this, so call teaser_playlist only when the playlist alone is requested. The NO_REPLY instruction further disambiguates expected behavior.

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