unsave_orphan_tracks

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it flags the quota tier (🟡), the scan scope ('walks library + all playlists (capped)'), and the destructive condition ('Destructive when dry_run=false'). It does not mention reversibility or return behavior, but the critical safety traits for a mutation tool are disclosed.

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 short sentences with zero filler: purpose is front-loaded first, followed by quota behavior and a destructive warning. Every sentence earns its place and the critical safety information is positioned at the end for emphasis.

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 destructive tool with fully self-documenting parameters, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how expensive it is, and when it mutates. Minor gaps remain — the exact playlist universe (user-owned vs followed playlists) is inferred, and with no output schema the return shape is only hinted at via response_format.

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 baseline of 3 applies — each of the four parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal semantic value by clarifying that dry_run=false triggers the destructive path and that unsaving is optional, but it does not extend meaning for scan_cap, max_remove, or response_format.

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-resource pair ('Find saved tracks... and optionally unsave them') and defines the key term 'orphans' inline as 'saved tracks that appear in no playlist'. This scope clearly differentiates it from related siblings like find_duplicate_tracks_across_playlists and dead_library_finder without needing to open their 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 usage context is implied: the agent can infer it is for hygiene/cleanup of saved tracks not referenced by any playlist, and 'Destructive when dry_run=false' hints at a safe-preview workflow. However, it names no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for when this tool is preferable over library_hygiene, dead_library_finder, or remove_saved_items.

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