playlist_remove_artist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive action (removes tracks), the preview behavior ('Shows exactly what would go'), and the quota cost ('2 GETs + 1 PUT when committing'). This is strong transparency for a mutation tool, though it does not mention irreversibility or auth requirements.

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, information-dense sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, matching modes are explained, and the quota is appended without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, matching semantics, preview mode, and quota cost. It is suitably complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool, though a brief note on required playlist ownership or irreversibility would make it fully comprehensive.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds matching flexibility for the 'artist' parameter and reinforces the dry-run/commit distinction, but most parameter meaning is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove'), a precise resource ('every track by one artist from a playlist'), and the matching modes (name case-insensitive, artist ID, or spotify:artist: URI). This clearly distinguishes it from generic remove_from_playlist and similar artist-filtering 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?

The description explains what the tool does and that it previews changes, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like playlist_exclude_artists or filter_playlist_by_artist. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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