playlist_resequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety and behavior burden and does well: it discloses in-place mutation, atomic replacement, quota cost, and a non-obvious episode-ordering rule. It does not mention that dry_run defaults to true, meaning a default call only previews and does not perform the 'written back' behavior, which is a notable gap.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action ('Sort a playlist in place') and then supply only high-value extras: sort keys, atomicity, quota, episode edge case, and related tools. There is no filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description delivers the core behavior, an important edge case, quota, and sibling pointers, while the schema fills in all parameter details including the dry_run default. The main remaining gaps are the lack of return-shape information and the slight tension between the description's 'written back' framing and the default dry_run=true behavior.

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% and every parameter has a meaningful description, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds sort-key names and the episode exception, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence states a precise operation ('Sort a playlist'), scopes it ('in place'), enumerates the five sort keys, and adds the atomic-replace behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from the reorder/move siblings it names and from the many playback/search tools in the sibling list.

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 implies usage by naming the operation and cross-referencing reorder_playlist_items and playlist_move_block, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. 'Also covers' blurs whether those are subsumed operations or separate tools, and it does not position itself against sibling tools like playlist_sort, sort_playlist_plan, or playlist_shuffle.

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