Reorder playlist items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals critical behavior: item_ids must contain every current item, mismatches return 422 reorder_mismatch, and the server uses a two-phase update to avoid constraint conflicts. These are non-obvious details essential for correct invocation and understanding side effects.

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 tightly structured with clear headings and bullets. Every sentence delivers useful information—usage, constraints, error handling, and mechanism—with no redundancy or filler. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 description is highly informative for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, covering operation, use cases, constraints, error behavior, and underlying mechanism. The only gap is the lack of any mention of the success response or return value, which would make it fully complete for an agent expecting a specific outcome.

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 schema already describes item_ids with the same constraint ('All current item ids of the playlist, in the desired final order') and covers 50% of parameters. The description reiterates this constraint and the error condition, but adds no new semantic meaning for playlist_id. It provides some reinforcement but does not compensate for the gap in playlist_id, so a baseline score is 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?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Set the playback order of a playlist's items in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add/update/delete playlist item, which perform different operations. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, outlining appropriate scenarios and the trade-off for simple moves. This gives agents practical guidance on when this tool is preferable to alternatives, far exceeding generic descriptions.

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