playlist_slice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the quota profile (GET + create + chunked adds) and the non-destructive nature of copying to a new playlist, which is good behavioral context. However, it omits the default dry_run=true behavior that controls whether anything is created, and says nothing about return format or errors, so transparency is partial.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a quota tag, front-loaded with the core action. The mode summary and use-case examples earn their place, and the quota edge is valuable operational context. No waste.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the three modes, and the quota, which is fairly complete. It lacks a note about the default dry_run/preview behavior and does not descrive return or error cases, but most parameter details are in the schema, so a 4 is reasonable.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description restates the modes in plain language but adds no information beyond the schema's enum and parameter descriptions, so it does not raise the score.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('a slice of one playlist … into a NEW playlist'), and enumerates the three slice modes (positions, first/last N, added-at date range). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like extract_playlist_range or split_playlist, so it is clear but not sibling-distinct.

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 use cases through examples ('Era snapshots, side A/B, decadal splits') and the mode list, but it never says when to choose this over the many sibling playlist-slicing tools, and there are no exclusions or alternatives. This is implied usage only.

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