Astra: play a target now

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial specifics: it replaces the current queue (what gets destroyed), explains refs are opaque signed strings that must be passed verbatim, and discloses that a ref can go stale and return a 404. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic annotation flags.

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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: the action, the prerequisite, and the alternative. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (astra_search), error conditions (stale ref 404), side effects (queue replacement), and the alternative for resuming (astra_control). This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without further assumptions.

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% and the parameter description in the schema fully explains targetRef, including the opaque-string caveat and staleness risk. The description repeats the same semantics without adding new parameter details, so per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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?

The description opens with a specific action: 'Start playing a track, album, artist, or playlist in Astra, replacing the current queue.' It names the resource (Astra content), the operation (play), and the side effect (replaces current queue), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like astra_enqueue (adds) and astra_control (resumes).

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?

Explicitly instructs to call astra_search first to convert a name into a ref, and explicitly names the alternative for resuming already-loaded content: 'use astra_control with action "play" instead.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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