set_repeat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the semantics of the repeat modes but does not mention side effects (e.g., affecting current playback), prerequisites (e.g., active device), or the optional device_id parameter's role. This is acceptable for a simple setter but not richly 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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then explains the value options. No wasted words; every part 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?

For a simple state-setting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It explains the state values and implies the action. Minor gaps like device behavior are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the optional device_id in the schema.

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 adds meaning to the 'state' parameter by explaining what 'context' and 'track' mean, going beyond the enum labels. The device_id parameter is not elaborated, but its schema description is adequate, so the description adds value overall.

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 verb ('set') and resource ('repeat mode'), and clearly differentiates from siblings like set_shuffle and set_volume. It also enumerates the three possible states, making it unambiguous what the tool does.

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 provides clear context by explaining that 'context' means repeat playlist/album and 'track' means repeat single track, which helps an agent select the right state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the tool is distinct enough among playback controls that usage is implied.

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