extract_playlist_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that a new playlist is created (source untouched), that a position map is reported, that dry_run defaults to TRUE for safety, and even the quota cost ('🟢 GET + create + chunked adds when committing'). It stops short of edge-case behavior (e.g., empty/invalid ranges) but covers the key behavioral traits well.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core operation and range semantics come first, the safety default second, and the quota note last. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, side effects, safety default, cost, and return behavior (the position map). It could add a sentence about the dry-run plan structure or validation behavior for fully complete guidance, but the gap is minor given the rich schema.

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% with detailed per-parameter text (start inclusive, end exclusive, negative-from-end, dry_run semantics). The description reinforces the critical range semantics and the dry_run default but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Extract'), a specific resource ('a positional range of a playlist'), and clarifies the outcome ('into a NEW playlist, reporting the original→new position map'). The 0-based/exclusive-end/negative-index semantics are front-loaded, and the phrase 'into a NEW playlist' implicitly differentiates it from mutation tools like remove_playlist_range.

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 dry_run-default-to-TRUE note implies a safe preview-then-commit workflow, and 'into a NEW playlist' implies the source is left intact. However, with a large field of overlapping siblings (playlist_slice, split_playlist, remove_playlist_range, playlist_move_block), there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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