Link a playlist to a scene

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses several behavioral traits: empty playlistName removes the link, names are matched exactly, a sound may be given as a partial name only if one match exists, and the playlist must exist in the world. This meaningfully informs an agent about edge cases and prerequisites without contradicting the destructiveHint or idempotentHint annotations.

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 sentences carry the full functional contract: the main action, the removal behavior, and the matching/compendium prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place and the key operation is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, removal case, matching rules, and a prerequisite. It does not specify what happens to a previously linked playlist when a new one is linked, but the idempotentHint annotation partially covers repeatability, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying exact matching behavior, the partial-name uniqueness rule for soundName, and the empty-string removal semantics for playlistName, all of which help an agent construct correct arguments.

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: link a playlist (and optionally a sound) to a scene, with the concrete effect that it starts when the scene is activated. It also covers the inverse operation via empty playlistName, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from generic playlist or scene tools.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: to attach a playlist to a scene for activation-triggered playback. It also gives an explicit alternative/prerequisite by instructing the agent to use import-from-compendium first if the playlist only exists in a compendium, which is practical routing guidance.

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