merge_snapshot_changes_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most critical trait: the tool is 'Read-only' — it will not mutate the live playlist. It also clarifies the computation performed (computing adds and removals between two snapshots). It does not describe what the plan output contains or how it behaves if the live playlist diverges from the baseline, though the response_format parameter partially covers return behavior.

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?

A single 19-word sentence with zero filler, front-loading the safety-critical 'Read-only' qualifier before the operation. The parenthetical efficiently encodes the two change modes without restating the schema.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and enums, and the description discloses the read-only nature, so the tool can be invoked safely. However, with no output schema, the agent is left guessing what a returned 'plan' looks like and what the follow-up action should be; the description never points to apply_snapshot_changes or explains how the plan is meant to be consumed.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's parenthetical '(add new and/or remove lost tracks)' loosely maps to the mode enum ('add_new', 'remove_lost') but adds no meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions and enum definitions already provide. 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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'replays the changes between two snapshots onto the live playlist'. The 'Read-only plan' qualifier and the parenthetical '(add new and/or remove lost tracks)' clearly distinguish it from the mutating sibling apply_snapshot_changes, so an agent can tell them apart from the description alone.

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 'Read-only plan' phrasing implies a preview-before-apply workflow and naturally pairs with siblings like apply_snapshot_changes, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer the intended workflow from the word 'plan' and the sibling naming convention.

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