remove_from_library_by_playlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: 'Quota: 🟡 2 GETs + DELETE (chunked)' discloses the API cost, the destructive nature of the operation, and that the DELETE executes in chunks — all beyond the schema. The description also implicitly defines what gets destroyed (playlist-overlapping tracks in Liked Songs). It stops short of noting reversibility or what happens when tracks are absent from the library, but the quota and chunking disclosures are genuine added value.

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 sentences with zero waste: the core operation is front-loaded first, and the quota disclosure follows as essential cost information for an agent deciding whether to invoke a destructive, multi-call operation. Every word 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 moderate-complexity cross-cutting mutation (playlist × library intersection), the description is largely sufficient: purpose, cost, and chunked execution are stated, and all parameters are fully documented in the schema, including a dry_run safety valve. Remaining gaps — no mention of undo/reversibility (undo_mutation and backup_first exist as siblings) and no behavior for non-matching tracks — are minor rather than crippling.

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 three parameters: playlist_id's role ('Playlist ID whose tracks will be removed from library'), dry_run's preview behavior, and response_format's enum semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource combination: 'Remove from Liked Songs any tracks that also appear in a given playlist.' This precisely captures both the target (Liked Songs/library) and the selection criterion (tracks overlapping a playlist), distinguishing it from siblings like remove_from_library, remove_from_playlist, and unsave_orphan_tracks without needing to open the schema. It is a specific, non-tautological statement of the operation.

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 use case evident — cleaning Liked Songs against a playlist's contents — but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as remove_saved_items, remove_from_library, or playlist_subtract, nor does it state conditions that would favor them. The usage context is implied by the operation's semantics rather than stated.

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