playlist_move_to_top

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity ('one atomic replace'), efficiency rationale, quota usage, and via the dry_run parameter, that the tool is preview-safe by default. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible or whether non-matching items are preserved, but the stable_order parameter hints at order preservation and the dry_run default makes experimentation safe.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior and matching criteria, the second explains the design rationale, and the third gives quota. All information is useful and not repeated elsewhere.

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?

Given the 7-parameter complexity with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a solid job of conveying purpose, matching modes, atomicity, and quota. It could go one step further and mention the effect when no matches are found, and the exact meaning of stable_order in prose, but the schema covers stable_order and the dry_run default mitigates risk.

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 every parameter documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the matching dimensions ('uris / artist / query') and the atomic-replace nature, which clarifies how these parameters relate to the operation. It doesn't add per-parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema already covers them thoroughly.

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 states a specific verb ('Bring'), a precise effect ('to the FRONT of a playlist'), the matching criteria ('uris / artist / query'), and the mechanism ('one atomic replace'). It also differentiates itself from the Spotify reorder N+1 approach, distinguishing it from siblings like reorder_playlist_items, playlist_move_block, and playlist_swap_positions.

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 explains when this tool is preferable ('Deliberately avoids Spotify reorder N+1 for large moves') and provides quota information ('Quota: 🟢 GET + 1 PUT'), which helps an agent decide whether it is an appropriate choice. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name a sibling alternative for small moves, though the atomic-replace rationale implies it is best for large moves.

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