export_liked_songs

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

As annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output location (Documents/YouTube Music Exports) and file formats, but it does not mention whether files are overwritten, whether authentication is required, or what the return value is. These are significant gaps for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action, the output formats, and the destination, earning its place without excess.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It misses the meaning of limit and does not explain behavioral outcomes like file overwriting or the nature of the response. Despite the low complexity, these gaps make it incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers the format parameter by listing CSV/JSON, but it completely omits the limit parameter, leaving its meaning (maximum number of songs) undocumented. The schema provides a default of 5000, but no explanation.

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 'Exporta' (exports), identifies the resource 'favoritos' (liked songs), and specifies output formats (CSV/JSON) and destination (Documents/YouTube Music Exports). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_liked_songs, which likely return data rather than write files.

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 implies use for exporting liked songs to a file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_liked_songs or search_music. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, only the inherent meaning of 'export'.

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