reverse_playlist_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that dry_run returns a read-only PLAN, that committing costs 'GET + 1 PUT', and that the operation is an atomic replace. It does not describe failure modes or the PLAN structure in detail, but the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The quota line and variant note are useful, though 'Also covers: playlist_reverse variant — See also: playlist_reverse' is slightly redundant and could be tightened.

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?

The description adequately covers dry_run/commit semantics and quota, but there is no output schema and no annotation support. It does not explain what the returned PLAN contains, how response_format alters it, or how max_results affects it, leaving moderate gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces dry_run's default and adds 'atomic replace' context, but it does not add meaningful semantics for max_results or response_format beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 states a specific action: 'reversing a playlist's entire order via one atomic replace'. It also distinguishes itself as a planning variant by mentioning 'playlist_reverse variant' and 'See also: playlist_reverse', making sibling differentiation clear.

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 conveys when to use the tool: it plans, dry_run defaults to TRUE, and commit is optional. It references playlist_reverse as a related alternative. It stops short of explicit exclusion rules or comparison against other plan tools like sort_playlist_plan, but the context is sufficient.

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