sort_playlist_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: 'read-only, commits nothing' discloses the non-mutating behavior, and 'Quota: 🟢 1–2 GETs' discloses resource cost. The only minor gap is that it doesn't touch on error cases or what happens for playlists that cannot be resolved, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: purpose and sort keys first, then the commit alternative, then quota. The most decision-relevant facts (read-only, preview, commit sibling) are front-loaded, and every clause 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, quota, and the sibling to use for committing. The response_format parameter covers output shape, so the missing piece is minor (e.g., pagination interaction with max_results, or handling of duplicate sort keys). Slightly shy of fully complete, hence 4.

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%, and each parameter already has a solid description including defaults ('Default name', 'Default asc') and bounds. The description adds the prose list of sort keys, which mirrors the schema enum, so it adds marginal value beyond structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('plan a sort'), the resource (playlist), the available sort keys (name, artist, album, duration, added-at date, release era), and the key outcome (preview the exact resulting order). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sort_playlist_apply and is clearly differentiated from siblings like reverse_playlist_plan, rotate_playlist_plan, and interleave_playlists_plan.

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 names the alternative explicitly ('use sort_playlist_apply to commit') and gives the selection condition: use this tool when you want to preview a sort without committing. This is direct, actionable guidance an agent can act on without inference.

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