reverse_playlist_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and provides meaningful behavioral context: dry_run defaults to TRUE, returning a read-only plan, and committing costs an extra PUT quota. It also discloses the atomic-replace mutation strategy. It does not detail failure modes or commit confirmations, but the core safety profile (read-only by default) is made explicit.

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 the purpose front-loaded and quota/behavior compactly integrated. Every clause adds information; no filler or repetition.

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-then-commit tool with no output schema, the description clarifies the default read-only behavior, the commit path, quotas, and the atomic replace mechanism. It does not describe the exact shape of the returned plan or the differing response formats, but those are partially covered by the response_format schema field. The description is adequate though not exhaustive.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description adds useful context by tying dry_run to the read-only plan behavior and quota, but it doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Plan (and optionally commit) reversing a playlist's entire order via one atomic replace.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like playlist_reverse, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the plan-first/read-only default distinguishes it from immediate-apply siblings.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies the tool is for previewing before committing but never states when to choose it over sibling tools like playlist_reverse or rotate_playlist_plan. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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