playlist_sort

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and the quota note ('🟢 GET all + PUT/POST') adds real value by telling the agent this tool both reads and mutates. 'In place' further signals that the playlist is permanently reordered. However, it stops short of disclosing irreversibility, required OAuth scopes, or side effects on the playlist, and doesn't point to dry_run as a preview guardrail.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the action, scope, and sort criteria, and the second delivers the quota signal. Every phrase 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 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits return format, reversibility, error behavior, and the relationship to the plan/apply siblings (sort_playlist_plan, sort_playlist_apply, reverse_playlist_plan, rotate_playlist_plan), leaving the agent to guess the correct workflow. The quota note and 'in place' phrasing help, but significant context is missing.

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 60%: dry_run, max_results, and response_format are already well-documented in the schema. The description's criterion list (added_at/name/artist/duration/popularity) maps onto the 8 sort_by enum values, adding slight context for the least-documented parameter, but it doesn't explain enum nuances (e.g., popularity only has desc, added supports both directions). playlist_id remains undocumented in both schema and description, though it is self-evident.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sort') with a clear resource ('a playlist') and precise scope: 'in place' by added_at/name/artist/duration/popularity. This separates it from the many get/search siblings and signals mutation rather than planning. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling sort_playlist_apply, which appears to be the apply counterpart in a plan/apply workflow, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'in place' and the quota line ('PUT/POST') imply this is the executing variant, and siblings like sort_playlist_plan and sort_playlist_apply suggest a plan/apply workflow, but the agent must infer that relationship. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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