kiosk_set_playlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'replaces' the playlist, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, whether the replacement is immediate or scheduled, if there are rate limits, or what happens to the previous playlist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Replace the full display playlist') and adds necessary detail ('with one or more scenes') and supported element types. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the types of elements supported, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's correct invocation.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying that scenes can include 'text, image, and video elements', which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't detail how to structure these elements (e.g., formats or ordering), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 action ('Replace the full display playlist') and the resource ('with one or more scenes'), specifying the types of elements supported (text, image, and video). It distinguishes from siblings like 'kiosk_show_scene' (which likely shows a single scene) by indicating it replaces the entire playlist. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'kiosk_set_overlay' or 'kiosk_set_theme', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'kiosk_show_scene' for single scenes, 'kiosk_set_overlay' for overlays, or 'kiosk_set_theme' for theme changes. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied at best.

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