playlist_move_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: 'Written as one atomic replace' discloses all-or-nothing transactional semantics, and 'Quota: 🟢 2 GETs + 1 PUT' discloses cost. It does not cover failure modes or reversibility, but atomicity plus cost visibility are substantive disclosures beyond the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: core semantics, closure behavior, then implementation/quota. The hardest concept (original numbering) is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trickiest semantic (original vs. post-move numbering) plus atomicity and quota. Minor gaps: the dry_run preview flow and response_format implications are left to the schema, but the essential decision-making info is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter meaning: it ties start and count together as a contiguous block, clarifies that to_position is interpreted in ORIGINAL numbering, and explains the 'closes up' consequence. These relationships are not fully derivable from the individual parameter descriptions alone.

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?

States a specific verb (Move), resource (contiguous block of playlist items), and the precise operation semantics (1-based start + count, target in ORIGINAL numbering). The block-move concept clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reorder_playlist_items, playlist_move_to_top, and playlist_swap_positions without needing to open any schema.

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 establishes clear context: block-based moves computed against original numbering, with the rest closing up—enough for an agent to recognize when this tool fits vs. single-item or top-of-playlist moves. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when NOT to use it, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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