move_tracks_between_playlists

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 the source is backed up to a local file first, that matched positions are deleted from the source and appended to the destination, that dry_run defaults to TRUE, and the quota class (🟡 with chunked deletes/adds on commit). This is exemplary disclosure for a destructive mutation tool, letting an agent understand the safety profile and side effects before invoking.

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 zero filler: action first, then operation sequence and safety behavior, then the dry_run default, then quota cost. Every clause earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts (destructive behavior, backup, dry_run default) are front-loaded.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: order of operations, backup safety, execution default, and quota. Remaining gaps are the lack of differentiation from the near-identical move_items_between_playlists sibling and no description of the PLAN/return format (though the schema's dry_run field does mention returning a PLAN).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by synthesizing the three match criteria (match_uris, query, artist) into a single matching concept and clarifying the execution flow relative to source and destination parameters. This is modest but real added meaning beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Move matching tracks ... from one playlist to another' and enumerates the three matching modes (uris, name substring, artist). This makes the tool's function unambiguous. However, the very close sibling 'move_items_between_playlists' exists and is never named or differentiated, so the description is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from that sibling.

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 implies usage context through the match modes ('by uris, name substring, or artist') and the backup/dry_run safety design, which suggests it is the safe choice for cross-playlist moves. But it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_items_between_playlists, copy_playlist, or add_to_playlist/remove_from_playlist, and gives no exclusions.

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