rotate_playlist_plan

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the default behavior is read-only planning, that passing false commits, and that quota is 🟢 GET + 1 PUT only when committing. It also clarifies rotation direction semantics for positive and negative N, which is rich, actionable context.

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 communicate the core action, direction rule, safety default, and quota impact. There is no filler or redundant phrasing; every clause 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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool safely: rotation rule, dry_run default, and quota effect. It could say more about the structure of the returned PLAN, but the combination of the schema and this summary is adequate for a 5-parameter tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates positions and dry_run behavior but adds no parameter meaning that the input schema does not already provide. max_results and response_format semantics remain entirely schema-defined.

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?

Description names a specific operation: 'Plan (and optionally commit) rotating a playlist by N positions' and specifies rotation direction for positive/negative N. It clearly signals a read-only planning mode via dry_run, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling playlist_rotate, so it misses the top score.

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 provides clear context: dry_run defaults to TRUE so the tool returns a read-only plan, and committing costs one PUT. This implies the plan-then-commit workflow effectively. It does not name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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