split_playlist_by_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the mutating side effect (N playlist creations only when committing), the safe read-only dry-run default, and the quota footprint. It stops short of edge cases like playlists with fewer tracks than parts or collisions with pre-existing prefix-named playlists, so it is not a 5.

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 sentences pack the core action, naming scheme, safety default, and quota into minimal text with zero filler. The most decision-relevant facts (side effect plus dry-run default) are 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but leaves the return value vague ('returns the part plan') and omits edge-case behavior such as uneven distribution or playlists shorter than the requested part count. An agent cannot predict what the plan contains or how degenerate inputs behave.

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 input schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds modest value by clarifying the prefix numbering scheme ('<prefix> 1..N') and tying dry_run to the read-only plan, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Split a playlist into N roughly-equal parts, each written to a NEW playlist.' The count-based splitting together with the '<prefix> 1..N' naming convention clearly distinguishes it from siblings like split_playlist_by_duration and the generic split_playlist.

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 gives useful operational context ('dry_run defaults to TRUE so it returns the part plan read-only' and the quota cost) that tells an agent it can preview safely. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over split_playlist_by_duration or split_playlist, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing among the large sibling set.

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