queue_next_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs reads and a write, gives a quota (2-3 reads + 1 write), names the actual endpoint (POST /me/player/queue), and explains the selection behavior. This is strong behavioral transparency for a mutating tool, though it doesn't describe failure/no-match behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then gives quota and endpoint detail. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

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 mutating queue tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough contextual information to select and call it correctly: the selection algorithm, quota, and write endpoint. It could add what happens when no candidate episode exists or how dry_run affects the response, but the existing covere is strong for this complexity.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'episodes_back lookahead', which lightly reinforces the episodes_back parameter, but it doesn't add meaningfully beyond what the schema already documents. The schema itself provides adequate descriptions for dry_run, show_id, device_id, episodes_back, and response_format.

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+resource combination: it finds the next unplayed episode of a show and queues it. It also clarifies the selection criteria (not in recently-played, not fully played, episodes_back lookahead), which distinguishes it from generic queue_next or queue_playlist tools. The 'podcast binge glue' phrase further contextualizes its intended role.

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 makes the tool's use case explicit: automatically finding and queueing the next unplayed episode of a specific show. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope ('of a show', 'episodes_back lookahead') is clear enough for an agent to know when it applies relative to sibling queueing tools.

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