tag_management

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it names the exact file being mutated, describes the edge case where remove with no tags deletes the artist entirely, and advertises dry_run as a preview gate. It omits reversibility/undo behavior and first-run file creation, and leaves add-vs-merge semantics implicit, which keeps it below 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose plus target and consumers, per-action behavior, and dry_run support. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 moderately complex tool (5 params, 2 enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, persistence location, downstream consumers, action behavior, and preview mode. Return-value shape is left to the response_format parameter rather than the description, and first-run file creation is not addressed, but nothing critical blocks a correct call.

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 five parameters (including the omit-on-remove tag behavior and response_format variants). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond echoing those semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb pair (declare/retract), a resource (genre tags for an artist), an exact persistence target (~/.spotify-mcp/genre-tags.json), and the downstream consumers (library_genre_report, filter_by_genre). This makes it unambiguous against read-style siblings like get_artist_genres and artist_genres_compact.

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?

It gives clear workflow context by stating the sidecar file is what library_genre_report and filter_by_genre consume, and it spells out action-specific semantics (add requires at least one tag; remove drops listed tags or the artist entirely). It does not name an alternative tool or state explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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