dedupe_playlist_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it explicitly states the operation is read-only (so the agent knows it is non-mutating) and discloses the quota cost ('🟢 1–2 GETs'). This is precisely the operational context an agent needs that structured fields do not provide.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, output contents are compressed into a parenthetical list, and the read-only/commit-path/quota details each earn their place. Structured as a single scannable block.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the essential return contents (groups, positions, removal plan), safety profile (read-only), workflow (commit via apply), and cost (1–2 GETs). Minor gaps remain — behavior for playlists with no duplicates, how max_results interacts with result grouping, and the structural shape of the output — but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (playlist_id, max_results, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the output is a removal plan, which maps to response_format. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('census'), a precise resource (duplicate URIs in a playlist), and the exact output contents (groups, all positions, keep-first/keep-last removal plan). This distinguishes it sharply from the sibling dedupe_playlist_apply, which is the commit counterpart. No ambiguity about what operation this performs.

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 makes the plan-then-commit workflow explicit: it is read-only and the agent should 'commit with dedupe_playlist_apply.' This gives clear when-to-use context for the plan/apply pair. It does not, however, contrast with other dedupe-related siblings like playlist_dedupe_advanced or find_duplicates_in_playlist, so exclusions are only partial.

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