split_queue_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical behavior: by default the tool only previews/plans, and only with dry_run=false does it actually create and fill playlists. This is a meaningful and useful behavioral disclosure, though it does not describe return formats or post-commit side effects beyond creating/filling playlists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and default behavior. Every clause earns its place; there is no padding or repetition of schema details.

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 four fully documented parameters and a clear preview/commit distinction, the description is nearly complete. It could specify more about what the plan output looks like, but the response_format parameter partially covers that, and no output schema is required for a planning tool.

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 well. The description adds only light reinforcement ('default 30 minutes each') and does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Plan splitting the upcoming queue') and states the core output ('runtime-bounded playlist chunks'). It is clearly distinct from general playlist splitting tools because it targets the upcoming queue and defaults to a preview/plan mode.

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 clear context: use it to plan queue splitting into time-bounded chunks, preview by default, and commit with dry_run=false. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the queue-specific scope and the dry-run distinction make the intended usage clear.

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