Move In Playlist

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

Annotations already declare the full profile (mutation, idempotent, destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine operational context with the quota cost of 51 units, but says nothing about the reordering side effects or the duplicate-video refusal behavior that the annotations don't cover.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the operation is front-loaded and the quota note is a compact, useful addendum. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needn't explain return values. It is nearly complete for the call itself, though a brief note that reordering shifts surrounding items would round it out.

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 100%, including the duplicate-refusal note on 'video' and the 0-based indexing on 'position', so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('move') and resource ('video ... in one of your playlists') plus the modifier 'to another position', which precisely distinguishes it from siblings like add_video_to_playlist and remove_from_playlist. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. It doesn't say to use add_video_to_playlist for insertion or explain the reorder-vs-add distinction; the only cue is the tool name itself.

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