remove_unavailable_playlist_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it only removes unavailable occurrences by position, preserves healthy copies, and mentions a read-only dry_run preview. It does not state whether the operation is reversible or what happens if items cannot be removed, but the provided behavior is transparent and useful.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, the relationship to sibling is named, and the dry-run capability is stated last as a useful clarifying 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the key details an agent needs: what it removes, what it preserves, and that a preview mode exists. It does not describe the return format or edge cases like partial failures, but it is reasonably complete for this scope.

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. The description adds context around dry_run ('Preview only — no writes') and max_results ('Max unavailable items to remove'), which is already in the schema, but it does add the concept of preserving healthy copies. Given the high schema coverage, a 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('unavailable (null track) items from a playlist'), and differentiates itself by noting it is the 'actionable companion to playlist_health_check'. It also clarifies scope ('only unavailable occurrences by position') so it is distinguishable from sibling removal tools like remove_from_playlist or clean_all_playlists.

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?

It explicitly positions itself as the actionable companion to playlist_health_check, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives it is not, but the mention of preserving healthy copies and targeting only unavailable items implies the distinction from broader cleanup tools.

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