skip_n

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing that each skip consumes one write, that N skips cost N calls, and that Spotify has no batch endpoint. This gives the agent cost/mutation awareness beyond the name. It does not cover edge cases like fewer than N tracks remaining, but the core effect is 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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words: the first states the behavior, the second adds the critical quota/limitation note. Well front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential cost, implementation, and side-effect information. It does not describe return format, but response_format parameter addresses that concern, and no preconditions are required since all parameters are optional.

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 already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little param-specific value beyond echoing the 1-20 range and quota implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the action — advance N tracks at once — and the mechanism (N sequential POST /me/player/next calls). It distinguishes itself as a multi-skip tool, though it does not explicitly reference the sibling skip_next for single skips.

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 implies use for advancing multiple tracks and warns about quota and the lack of a batch endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer skip_next for a single skip or mention preconditions like active playback or device selection.

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