Astra: create and edit playlists

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

The annotations only signal mutating, open-world, non-idempotent behavior. The description goes far beyond by disclosing that refs are opaque signed strings that must be passed verbatim, that stale refs yield 404, that only locally owned normal playlists are editable, and that deletion is impossible. This is rich behavioral context with no contradictions.

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 front-loaded with a clear first-sentence summary, then efficiently lists required parameters per action, followed by essential cross-tool references and failure modes. Every sentence is informational and earns its place; there is no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (six parameters, five actions, no output schema, sparse annotations), the description covers all necessary operational context: how to source refs, what causes 404, what playlist types reject edits, and the absence of deletion. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further clarification.

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?

While the schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds crucial per-action requirements ('create needs name', 'rename needs ref and name', etc.), the automatic batching of >100 trackRefs, and the rule to never parse or edit refs. These semantics are not present in the schema and significantly improve correct invocation.

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 precise and specific verb-resource pairing: 'Create a playlist in Astra, rename one, or add / remove / reorder its tracks.' It enumerates all supported actions and clearly distinguishes this playlist-focused tool from sibling queue-editing tools like astra_queue_edit.

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 description explicitly tells the agent where to obtain refs (astra_search), explicitly excludes mirrored/dynamic playlists with a concrete error code, and explicitly states that playlist deletion is not available. These are direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use directives with an alternative source, exceeding the minimum guidance.

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