playlist_sort

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation mutates a playlist ('in place') and mentions quota, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what changes a dry_run prevents. The 'safe plan/apply' phrasing is vague and unhelpful.

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 first sentence is concise and information-dense, and the quota note is useful. However, the ending redundantly mentions the plan/apply siblings twice ('Also covers' plus 'See also'), adding confusion rather than clarity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior, mutation impact, and tool selection context. It explains none of these: an agent cannot tell what the tool returns, whether dry_run is recommended for safety, or how this relates to the plan/apply siblings. This is particularly risky for an in-place mutation tool.

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 schema already documents dry_run, max_results, and response_format, covering about 60% of parameters. The description adds useful context for sort_by by naming the underlying fields, but it does not clarify playlist_id, sort direction semantics, or how dry_run affects the result beyond the schema description.

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 opening phrase 'Sort a playlist in place by added_at/name/artist/duration/popularity' clearly names a specific verb, resource, and sort keys. However, the subsequent 'Also covers: sort_playlist_plan / sort_playlist_apply' blurs the tool's exact scope and does not sharply distinguish it from those siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sort_playlist_plan or sort_playlist_apply. The 'See also' note names siblings but provides no decision criteria, and 'Also covers' is ambiguous about whether this tool is meant to replace them.

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