playlist_strip_episodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutating operation ('atomic replace' and 'PUT'), gives a quota ('GET + 1 PUT'), and explains the filter approach. It does not detail reversibility or side effects, but 'dry_run' in the schema covers preview behavior, so this is reasonably transparent.

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 no filler: the purpose, use case, mechanism, and quota are all packed in efficiently. The most important behavioral note is front-loaded before the quota detail.

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?

The combination of description and fully documented schema gives the agent playlist_id, strip options, dry_run preview behavior, response_format choices, and quota awareness. There is no output schema and no explicit example of the returned plan, but the response_format parameter sufficiently sketches expected output styles.

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 already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds little parameter-level detail beyond reflecting the 'episodes' or 'tracks' choice, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'strip every podcast EPISODE (or every TRACK)' from a playlist. It also names the mechanism ('one client-side filter + atomic replace') and gives a use context ('after collab drift') that distinguishes it from generic remove/filter playlist 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?

The description clearly frames when to use the tool: 'purify a playlist after collab drift' and strip either episodes or tracks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection among many playlist-maintenance siblings.

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