Add to Playlist

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate the tool is a safe write operation. The description adds the behavioral detail of immediate playback via 'append-play' mode, but lacks information on error handling, duplicate detection, or other side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately introduces the key mode variant.

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 tool with full annotations, the description covers the core functionality and mode behavior. It does not mention the return value or confirm what happens after addition, but this is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 100%, so the description provides minimal added value: it paraphrases the query parameter as 'path or search term' and clarifies the mode option. This reinforces but does not significantly extend beyond the schema descriptions.

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 adds a file to a playlist, specifying the action verb 'add', the resource 'playlist', and the method (by path or search term). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mpv_playlist and mpv_play by focusing on addition rather than playback or management.

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 context for usage: when to use the tool (to add a file) and how to use mode 'append-play' for immediate playback. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but sibling tool names like mpv_load_playlist imply differentiated use cases.

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