dislike_current_song

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key side effects: persistent exclusion from future recommendations, skipping the track, and artist-level blocking via block_artist. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or rate limits, but the core behavioral impact is clear.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the primary action and secondary parameter effect without any wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral consequences: persistent dislike, skipping, and optional artist blocking. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the skip toggle, but overall it gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains block_artist=true well ('also excludes that artist from all future recommendations') and implies the skip behavior, but it does not clarify that skip can be set to false to avoid skipping, leaving one parameter's toggle semantics underspecified.

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 and resource ('Marks the current song as disliked') and states the resulting behavior ('never recommended again, and skips it'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like like_current_song and skip_to_next_track.

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 implies when to use it by describing the outcome (dislike and skip), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions such as using skip_to_next_track instead when the user only wants to skip without disliking. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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