playlist_keep_artist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers useful context: it is an atomic replace (single PUT), consumes 2 GETs + 1 PUT, and explicitly states that everything else is dropped. It also clarifies the podcast-episode edge case. It does not explicitly warn about destructiveness, but the atomic-replace wording and default dry_run in the schema partially cover that.

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 short sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the optional episode behavior, atomicity, and quota. Every sentence earns its place and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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 description covers the core operation, the podcast-episode edge case, atomicity, and resource cost, which is substantial for a tool with no annotations. Parameter-level details like dry_run and response_format are already in the schema. It does not describe the return format, but the response_format enum and no-output-schema context make this less critical.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds little beyond the schema. It does provide a rationale for keep_episodes ('they have no artist') and hints at the replace semantics, but this is marginal and largely redundant with the parameter 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'keep ONLY tracks by one artist in a playlist' and 'drop everything else'. This precisely states what the tool does and distinguishes it from general playlist filters. The 'Inverse filter' label and the atomic-replace note make the operation 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 the tool: when you want to retain only one artist's tracks and discard all others. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools such as playlist_exclude_artists, filter_playlist_by_artist, or playlist_keep_only, nor does it state conditions for choosing this over them. The 'Inverse filter' hint is indirect and relies on agent inference.

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