skip_n

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that this performs N separate write operations, has a quota of N writes, and cannot batch. This gives the agent accurate expectations about side effects and cost, although it does not mention partial failure behavior or rate-limit implications.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by the quota warning and sibling references. The phrase 'Also covers: single skip via skip_next / skip_previous' is slightly ambiguous, but overall the description avoids waste and 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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the operation, implementation approach, quota impact, and related tools. It could be stronger by stating when not to use it, but the schema covers parameters and the sibling list supplies alternatives.

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 all four parameters. The description adds meaning around the n parameter by explaining the sequential call mechanics, but it does not add much beyond the schema for dry_run, device_id, or response_format.

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 operation: advancing N tracks via sequential POST /me/player/next calls. It explicitly distinguishes itself from skip_next and skip_previous, making the tool's unique role easy to identify among a very large sibling set.

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 explains why this tool exists (no batch-skip endpoint) and notes the associated quota cost, which is essential context for choosing it. It names skip_next and skip_previous as related tools, though it could more explicitly state 'for a single skip, use skip_next/skip_previous'.

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