merge_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 and meets it. It declares the read-only dry-run default, the optional commit path, creation of a new playlist plus chunked adds, and a quota cost. This is a rich and accurate side-effect profile beyond the schema.

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 description is two efficiently structured sentences. The first front-loads purpose and default behavior, the second adds quota context. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 planning tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the default mode, and commit side effects. It does not detail the structure of the returned PLAN or explicitly state that source playlists remain untouched, but the response_format parameter and dry_run explanation cover most operational needs.

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%, meaning all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds contextual reinforcement for playlist_ids ('2–10'), dedupe ('optional first/last'), and dry_run ('defaults to TRUE'), but it doesn't introduce new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('merge'), the resource (2–10 playlists), the output (a NEW playlist), and optional dedupe behavior. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by leading with 'Plan (and optionally commit)', which separates it from direct merge tools like merge_playlists.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: it plans a merge and can optionally commit, with dry_run defaulting to TRUE so a call is read-only by default. The quota warning ('🟡 N GETs + create + chunked adds when committing') informs cost-aware selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like merge_playlists or state when to prefer them.

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