queue_playlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the 200-track cap, ordering behavior, that replace is unsupported and returns ok:false with guidance, and dry_run behavior is described in the schema. It could add more about failure modes (e.g., no active device) or rate limits, but it covers the most important behavioral quirks.

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, front-loads the core behavior and cap, and immediately addresses the key mode limitation. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., count queued) but does mention replace returns ok:false with guidance. It covers the main caveats an agent would need: cap, order, unsupported mode, dry_run preview. Missing a bit on device requirements and failure modes, but otherwise complete for a queue-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds the cap 200 and ordering context, and the mode enum is well-documented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some behavioral nuance (cap, order, replace behavior) but does not add much parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 (Queue) and resource (all tracks from a playlist/album/artist URI in order), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like queue_next, add_to_queue, and queue_replace_via_playlist by naming the URI types and cap. It also immediately signals an important limitation (cap 200, replace unsupported).

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 and schema explicitly explain mode=append vs mode=replace, and the description warns that replace is not supported. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for replacing the queue (e.g., queue_replace_via_playlist) or state when to prefer add_to_queue/queue_next over this tool, so while context is clear, exclusions/alternatives are not fully explicit.

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