restore_playlist_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: read-only, never mutates. It also clarifies that the tool produces a plan rather than executing changes, which is the most important behavioral distinction. It doesn't detail response formatting, but the plan's content is sufficiently specified.

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 opening sentence is dense and front-loaded with the core behavior, and it earns its place. The trailing Snapshot guide is somewhat redundant given the sibling list, but it is well-organized and useful for orienting the agent. Minor redundancy prevents a 5.

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 plan-preview tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: what it does, what it doesn't do, and how it relates to the snapshot lifecycle. It could go further by describing the shape of the returned plan, but 'exactly which tracks would be added/removed' provides enough functional completeness.

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% — all three parameters (playlist, snapshot, response_format) have descriptive text including defaults and enum values. The description adds conceptual context about how playlist and snapshot relate, but it doesn't add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('plan'), resource (snapshot-to-playlist reconciliation), and output (exactly which tracks would be added/removed). It explicitly distinguishes itself as read-only and separates itself from restore_playlist_from_snapshot, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 Snapshot guide categorizes related tools (create/list/read/diff/restore) and places restore_playlist_plan under restore, while the 'never mutates' note signals it is the preview counterpart to restore_playlist_from_snapshot. This is clear context, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when you want to preview before restoring' instruction.

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