vibo_move_song

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

The description adds the 'Confirm-gated' trait, which is not present in the annotations, providing useful context that the tool requires a confirmation step. However, it doesn't elaborate on what happens without confirmation (preview) or any side effects beyond the move itself.

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 two-sentence summary (the second a fragment) that delivers maximum information with minimum words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The schema covers all parameter details, and the description adds the confirmation gate flag. However, the absence of an output schema and the vague 'Confirm-gated' leave the agent without information about what the preview looks like or how confirmation should be handled.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any extra semantics about parameters; it only refers to 'songs' generically.

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 ('Move') and resource ('songs') with explicit source/target sections, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is distinguishable from siblings like add/remove by the inherent 'from...to...' phrasing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over add_song_to_section or remove_song_from_section. The 'Confirm-gated' note hints at invocation flow but doesn't explain the two-step preview/confirm process, which is left to the schema.

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