Resolve Playlist Candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond these: it returns exact catalog metadata and links, flags unresolved tracks, duplicate recordings, artist concentration, and version markers, and explicitly states it never scores theme fit or writes to the library. This provides a rich behavioral profile without contradicting the annotations.

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 English portion is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a list of outputs and non-actions. The Chinese translation adds specific metadata fields (release date, genre, duration, lyrics availability) that enrich the description, but the overall structure is efficient and no sentence is wasted. The purpose is stated first, and the key constraints (no scoring, no writes) are included.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by specifying what is returned (exact catalog metadata and links) and what issues are flagged (unresolved tracks, duplicates, artist concentration, version markers). It does not detail the exact output structure or error handling, but for a resolution tool this is acceptable. It also covers usage context (before selection) and safety (read-only). The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%: both parameters (tracks and storefront) have descriptions in the schema, including format for tracks and default for storefront. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to ground an LLM-curated candidate pool in Apple Music metadata before final selection or creation. It specifies the verb (resolve/ground), the resource (candidate pool vs. Apple Music metadata), and explicitly distinguishes from other operations by stating it never scores theme fit or writes to the library. This differentiates it from sibling tools like am_search_songs (search) and am_create_playlist (creation).

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 clear timing guidance: use 'before final selection or creation'. It also states what the tool does not do (scoring, writing), implying it should not be used for those purposes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use am_search_songs to find songs'), leaving some inference to the agent. The context is clear enough, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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