add_to_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the track goes to the end of the queue, but not whether current playback continues, whether an empty queue is required or handled, what happens with an out-of-range number, or whether the queue persists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, the input, and the destination of the effect all appear in one clause.

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?

The output schema means return values need no explanation, and the one parameter's meaning is covered. However, for a state-mutating queue tool with zero annotation coverage, missing notes on error/out-of-range handling and interaction with playback leave it only adequate.

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 coverage is 0% — the raw schema just says an integer named "Number" — but the description supplies the crucial semantics: it is an index into the most recent search results, not a track ID. Only the valid range and error behavior for bad numbers remain unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (appends) and resource (queue) plus the exact source of the input (track number from the latest search results), which separates it from play_search_result. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"From the latest search results" implies the prerequisite that a search must precede this call, and "appends... to the end of the queue" implies it is non-disruptive queueing rather than playback. No explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g., play_search_result, add_search_result_to_favorites) is given.

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