playlist_balance

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the safety burden and does a good job: it explicitly states side effects ('Creates N new playlists; the source is left untouched') and provides quota cost. It does not repeat the dry_run default behavior, but the schema covers that; the description still communicates mutation, source safety, and resource cost.

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 three compact sentences with no filler: purpose, strategy explanation, side effects, and quota each earn their place. It is front-loaded and avoids repeating what the schema already says.

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?

Combined with the highly detailed input schema, this description is nearly complete: it covers the action, the two strategies, the non-destructive outcome, and the quota. The only notable gap is not stating in the description that dry_run defaults to true and must be set to false to commit, though that is fully documented in the parameter 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 defaults and enum descriptions already provided for every parameter. The prose adds useful conceptual color—'first third,' 'round-robin deal,' 'samples the whole span'—but no parameter meaning is newly established that wasn't in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and object ('Split a playlist into N balanced new playlists') and clearly explains the two strategies: sequential chunks and interleave. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping sibling tools like split_playlist_by_count or balance_playlist_pairs, but the described behavior is unambiguous.

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 when to use it: when you want to split a playlist into N roughly balanced parts, and it explains the strategic choice between sequential and interleave. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the many split/plan siblings, and the dry_run-to-commit workflow is only surfaced in the schema, not in usage guidance.

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