playlist_move_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses atomicity ('one atomic replace'), the surrounding replay behavior ('closes up'), and quota cost (2 GETs + 1 PUT). It could add explicit mention of permanent mutation/authorization requirements when dry_run is false, but the PUT/dry-run signals cover the main safety trait.

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 core semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence and the operational notes are compact. There is minor redundancy in repeating the same two sibling names in 'Also covers' and 'See also', but no material bloat.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the key conceptual model, atomicity, and quota. Remaining operational details (dry_run, response_format, max_results) are handled by a fully-covered schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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, but the description adds valuable relational meaning: start + count define a block, the block's first item lands at to_position, and the playlist closes the gap. This is meaning beyond the individual property 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 names a precise operation—moving a contiguous block of playlist items—and specifies the indexing convention and target semantics. This clearly differentiates it from generic reorder or swap tools and from the named siblings.

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?

It routes the agent by stating it 'covers' reorder_playlist_items and playlist_resequence and lists them as see-also, which helps choose among siblings. It does not spell out when not to use it or compare against nearby tools like playlist_move_to_top, so it falls short of a 5.

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