batch_add_to_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the write nature, the per-URI POST mechanism, the quota impact ('N writes'), and the queued/failed summary return. It does not discuss error handling or dry_run behavior, but the core side effects are clearly stated.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose, then add mechanics/quota and related-tool routing. Every sentence contributes useful information 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?

The description covers purpose, mechanics, quota, output summary, and sibling relationships, while the schema fully documents all four parameters. Some minor gaps remain around failure behavior and dry_run effects, but the agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it reinforces that the tool handles multiple URIs and returns a summary, but it does not explain dry_run, device_id, or response_format more deeply than the schema already does.

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: adding multiple URIs to the playback queue in one shot, with the mechanics briefly specified as POSTing each URI to /me/player/queue. It also differentiates itself from add_to_queue and queue_playlist by naming these siblings and the single/playlist cases they cover.

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 names the relevant alternatives (add_to_queue for single add, queue_playlist for playlist queue) and the batch context is clear from 'multiple URIs in one shot.' It does not give fully explicit when-not instructions, but the routing signal is present and inferable.

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