export_snapshot_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: dry_run=true is the default and previews the bundle instead of writing, and the non-dry-run path exports 'locally'. However, the dry_run behavior is already fully described in the parameter schema, and the description does not disclose side effects like overwriting files, required permissions, or what the preview/export actually returns. This is adequate but not rich.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the description is a dense run-on that quickly shifts from purpose to dry-run behavior to a multi-item Snapshot guide. The trailing list is useful for context but makes the description feel cluttered and harder to parse than necessary. It is concise in word count but poorly structured.

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 required parameters, a 100%-documented schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what gets bundled, the two selection modes, the dry-run default, and where the export goes. The response_format parameter documents output variants, so the missing output schema is not a major gap. The related-tools guide further completes the workflow picture. It lacks file-path or return-structure details, but the core calling context is present.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes what the schema already says ('all of one playlist' maps to playlist, 'explicit ids' maps to snapshots, 'dry_run=true (default)' maps to dry_run). It adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as formats, constraints, or examples, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Bundle') and resource ('selected snapshots'), and names the concrete output ('a single portable JSON export file locally'). It also distinguishes itself from the snapshot lifecycle siblings by explicitly mapping create/list/read/diff/restore tools in the trailing Snapshot guide, so an agent can tell this is the export/bundle step.

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 Snapshot guide provides clear context for when this tool fits: it labels take_playlist_snapshot as create, list_saved_snapshots as list, read_playlist_snapshot as read, diff/restore tools accordingly, which implies this tool is for bundling/exporting. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X when...' or state exclusions, but the workflow context is strong enough to route an agent among snapshot-related tools.

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