playlists_trigger_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is to 'trigger the next item,' implying a mutation or state change, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it advances playback or changes focus), error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of triggering actions in a playlist system with many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on when to use this tool, behavioral details (since no annotations or output schema are provided), and differentiation from alternatives. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to use it effectively without additional context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'playlistId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the playlist.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('trigger') and target ('next item in a specific playlist'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playlists_trigger_focused_next' or 'audio_trigger_playlist', which might have similar functions but different scopes or targets.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'playlists_trigger_focused_next' for focused playlists or 'playlists_trigger_active_announcement' for active announcement playlists. It lacks context about prerequisites, like whether the playlist must be active or focused, or any exclusions.

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