quick_save_now

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It responsibly reveals that this is not a read-only operation ('1 library write'), that it costs '1 player read + 1 library write,' and that 'dry_run previews' the action. This is strong context, though it doesn't mention auth requirements or detailed side-effect edge cases.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the composite nature is stated next, and the read/write cost plus dry_run behavior are packed into the final sentence. Every sentence 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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, fallback behavior, side-effect profile, and dry-run safeguard. The response_format parameter in the schema already explains output options, so the description does not need to repeat them. Slightly more detail about authorization or error cases would push it higher, but nothing critical 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 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description (market, recent fallback, dry_run default, response_format variants). The tool description adds context about the overall read/write cost and dry_run preview, but it does not meaningfully extend the per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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: saves the currently-playing track (or last `recent` recent tracks) to the library. Explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling primitives by saying it 'collapses get_currently_playing → save_to_library into a single step,' so an agent can tell this composite apart from both underlying tools.

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 implies the usage context: use this one-call tool when the user wants to 'like this song' rather than manually chaining get_currently_playing and save_to_library. It gives a clear context for use, but does not explicitly state exclusion conditions or when an alternative should be preferred, so it stops short of a 5.

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