playlist_seed_shuffle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: 'in place' plus quota '1 PUT' disclose mutation, deterministic seed behavior is stated, and edge-case behavior ('Unavailable items are kept, pinned at the end') and cost ('2 GETs + 1 PUT') are disclosed. It stops short of warning that a committed shuffle is irreversible or naming required auth scopes, but this is well above the typical bar for an annotation-free mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then edge-case and cost details. No wasted words; the quota line is compact and informative.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers purpose, algorithm, determinism, unavailable-item handling, and quota — enough to invoke correctly and safely, especially since dry_run defaults to true. The main gap is the return value/PLAN shape and explicit auth requirements, but the schema's response_format and dry_run descriptions partially cover those.

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 five parameters. The description adds a workflow gloss (seed → 'same seed, same order'; dry_run → 'preview and commit') but does not add syntax or format details beyond 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+resource+mechanism: 'Shuffle a playlist in place (Fisher–Yates) with an optional deterministic seed.' The 'in place' mutation and seeded determinism distinguish it from siblings like playlist_shuffle (plain shuffle) and set_shuffle (playback shuffle mode). An agent can tell what this does and when it differs without opening the 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 'same seed, same order, so you can preview and commit the exact same shuffle' phrasing clearly frames the intended workflow: reproducible, previewable shuffle mutations with dry_run as the safe default. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., playlist_shuffle) or states when not to use it, so guidance is contextual and implied rather than explicit.

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