play_music

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Zero context-switch background music playback' hints at non-interruptive playback, but nothing is said about what happens if the query matches nothing, whether it replaces or queues against current playback, or whether any permission/authorization is needed for a side-effecting action.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed immediately by concrete examples. Every element 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and for a one-parameter tool the definition is close to sufficient. The gap is the unaddressed overlap with resolve_music_query, which matters given the sibling list.

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?

With one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must supply the semantics, and the two examples do clarify that 'query' is a natural-language music request rather than an ID. It stops short of saying what forms are accepted (song, artist, language, mood) or what happens with ambiguous input.

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 plus resource ('Start ... background music playback') and scopes it to a query string, which is clear enough for an agent to know what happens. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling resolve_music_query, so the agent cannot tell from the text which of the two music tools to pick.

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 two inline examples ('play spb songs hindi', 'play lofi') implicitly demonstrate the kind of free-form query expected, which is useful usage guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus resolve_music_query, and no exclusions or preconditions are given.

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