interleave_playlists_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. It explicitly states the read-only plan behavior, the atomic overwrite side effect with the required conditions, and even the quota impact (N GETs + 1 PUT). This is genuinely transparent for a tool that can mutate state.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose, mode semantics, and quota. The most important distinction (plan vs commit) is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core call pattern, the dual read/write mode, and the quota. It stops short of detailing edge cases such as what happens if target_playlist_id is also among the sources, or how response_format changes the PLAN, but the 100% schema coverage compensates for most of that.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between target_playlist_id and dry_run, and by framing playlist_ids range and strategies in plain terms ('round-robin one track each or in N-track chunks'). This adds meaning to the parameter relationships beyond individual field docs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'interleaving 2–10 playlists' with round-robin and chunk strategies. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic playlist tools by explaining the interleaving behavior and the optional commit mode. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 gives clear conditional usage guidance: without a target it returns a read-only PLAN; with target_playlist_id and dry_run=false it atomically overwrites. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., merge_playlists_plan) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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