start_podcast_session

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: the resume-offset limitation is a genuine, non-obvious behavioral gotcha that would otherwise cause download errors, and the dry_run guarantee ('nothing is played or queued') clarifies side effects. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., no active device) but what it discloses is specific and valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most decision-relevant limitation and the dry_run safeguard. The PUT /me/player/play endpoint detail is slightly implementation-specific but earns its place by making the resume behavior concrete; no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation tool with real side effects, no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters, the description covers the biggest surprise (resume-offset behavior) but leaves gaps: it never says what the tool returns (confirmation? queue summary? session description?), what happens when no device is active, or how 'plan' selects episodes beyond the schema'd parameters. Adequate but not complete.

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 seven parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description's dry_run statement reinforces the schema's existing dry_run semantics but adds no per-parameter meaning beyond it; no compensation is needed beyond baseline.

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 action — 'Plan a podcast session ... and start it on a device' — with a clear resource and an explicit pointer to the planning-only sibling, plan_podcast_session. This lets an agent distinguish it from simple playback tools like play_on or queue_next and from the plan-only variant without opening schemas.

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 reference '(see plan_podcast_session)' implies that planning-only flows belong to that sibling, and the dry_run clause signals a preview-only usage mode. However, the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over plan_podcast_session, play_on, or queue_nex — the decision condition 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.