vibo_export_event_to_spotify

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds meaningful context: the confirm gate (must set confirm=true), the Spotify connection requirement, and the return of exported/failed counts. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and prerequisites.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add critical behavioral details (Spotify connection, confirm gating, return value). No redundant or filler language is present.

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 schema covers all parameter meanings and the description covers the core operation, prerequisites, confirm mechanism, and return value, the description is sufficiently complete for a mutation tool. It does not mention the preview behavior when confirm=false, but the schema already explains that, so the description remains 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 100% with all parameters described (eventId, sectionIds, title, confirm, onlyFlagged). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not exceed the baseline for 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 clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'an event's song selections to a new Spotify playlist', explicitly naming Spotify to distinguish from the sibling Apple Music export tool. It also explains what the tool returns (playlist URL and export/failure counts), leaving no ambiguity about its 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 clear context: this is for exporting to Spotify, requires Spotify to be connected, and is confirm-gated. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like vibo_export_event_to_apple_music, but the tool name and Spotify-specific scope imply when to use it.

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