save_discover_weekly

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

With no annotations to carry the burden, the description discloses the mutation behavior ('creates or overwrites'), the risk in fallback resolution ('unverified'), the safety valve ('dry_run previews'), and idempotence behavior. It also explains what the result contains, which is valuable for an operation that overwrites state.

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 pack the core purpose, resolution strategy, dry-run behavior, idempotence, and output expectation with no filler. The most important mutation semantics appear in the first sentence, and every sentence adds new information.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers what the tool does, what could be overwritten, how it resolves the source playlist, the preview option, idempotence, and what the response reports. An agent gets enough to call it correctly without needing clarifications.

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 dry_run, archive_name, and response_format clearly. The description adds context like idempotence and result echo, but that is not primarily parameter-level meaning; it reinforces the schema rather than filling gaps.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Archive your Discover Weekly into a regular playlist (creates or overwrites the archive)'. It clearly differentiates this from a plain playlist save or a one-off track save, and the focus on Discover Weekly separates it from sibling tools like save_release_radar or backup_library.

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 clear operational context: it resolves Discover Weekly through /me/playlists exact match first, falls back to search, supports dry_run for preview, and is idempotent when the archive already matches. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the intended use case is strongly implied.

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