spotifyLibrary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions actions like 'save', 'createPlaylist', etc., it doesn't describe behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on mutations (e.g., whether deletions are permanent). The focus is on workflows rather than behavioral transparency, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 structured with a brief purpose statement, bullet-pointed common flows, and a note, making it easy to scan. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating how to get IDs) and could be more front-loaded with a clearer tool definition. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly concise.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers usage workflows and parameter sourcing well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, errors) and doesn't explain return values. This is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds some value by explaining how to obtain IDs (e.g., from spotifyInfo) and listing common actions, but it doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline of 3 given the high schema coverage.

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 'Gestiona biblioteca y playlists del usuario' which translates to 'Manages user library and playlists', providing a general purpose. However, it's vague about the specific actions and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings (spotifyAuth, spotifyInfo, spotifyPlayer) beyond mentioning them in usage examples. The description focuses more on workflows than on defining the tool's core function.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines through 'FLUJOS COMUNES' (common flows) and a 'NOTA' section. It details when to use this tool versus alternatives like spotifyInfo for obtaining IDs, and specifies workflows for common tasks (e.g., saving current song, creating playlists). This gives clear context on when and how to invoke the tool relative to siblings.

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