playlist_resequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does well by noting in-place mutation, one atomic replace, episodes sorting last, and quota cost. However, it does not reconcile 'written back' with the schema's dry_run default of true, which could mislead an agent into thinking a bare call mutates the playlist.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries information: sort keys, in-place behavior, atomicity, episode handling, and quota. There is no 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?

The description communicates the core behavior efficiently, but the tool has significant complexity (dry_run plans vs. commits, response_format, direction, max_results) and no output schema. The write-back statement conflicts with the dry_run default, and there is no mention of what the tool returns or when to use plan vs. commit paths, so an agent may not fully understand invocation semantics from the description alone.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by mapping human-readable sort keys to the enum values and clarifying the edge case that episodes sort last when no artist/album key applies, which is not stated in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sort a playlist in place', and enumerates the available sort keys ahead of the schema. It clearly conveys what the tool does, and the 'atomic replace' wording distinguishes it from plan-only tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like playlist_sort, sort_playlist_plan, sort_playlist_apply, or playlist_reverse. The description implies the tool is for sorting, but it does not state when to choose it over siblings or when a dry-run versus commit is appropriate.

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