snapshot_removed_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List only' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination behavior, potential errors, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 compact: one clear purpose sentence followed by a structured snapshot workflow guide. There is no filler, and the guide adds useful sibling context, though it is slightly dense with tool names.

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 diff-list tool with well-documented parameters and a response_format parameter, the description is mostly complete. It explains the direction of the diff and workflow placement, and the schema covers parameter meanings. The main gap is absence of any detail about the actual return shape or behavior, which matters more because there is no output 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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds orientation by calling from_snapshot 'older' and to_snapshot 'newer', which helps map parameters to the diff semantics, but it does not otherwise enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'List only the tracks removed between an older and a newer snapshot of a playlist.' It also embeds a snapshot workflow guide that distinguishes this tool from sibling diff tools like snapshot_new_tracks and diff_playlist_snapshots.

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 snapshot guide provides clear workflow positioning ('diff' step) and names related tools for create, list, read, diff, and restore. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer snapshot_removed_tracks over snapshot_new_tracks or diff_playlist_snapshots; this is left to inference.

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