validate_reorder_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool validates input and returns 'minimal update actions,' but omits details like error handling on invalid input, whether the tool is read-only (likely, but not stated), or any authorization requirements. It does not contradict annotations (none exist).

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 only three sentences long, with the main purpose in the first line. Every sentence adds essential information: the core action, a critical constraint, and a note on an optional parameter. There is no redundancy or extra text.

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 has 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an existing output schema (not shown), the description provides a basic understanding. It defines the input constraint for the key parameter and the loose nature of 'running_plan.' However, it does not explain what qualifies as 'minimal update actions,' how failures are communicated, or how this tool relates to sibling tools beyond implication. Adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds meaning to two of three parameters: it specifies that 'ordered_playlist_item_ids must contain every existing playlist item exactly once' and that 'running_plan is optional metadata ... validated only for shape.' The schema has 0% description coverage, so this additional context is valuable. However, 'playlist_id' is not described, leaving a small gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Validate a proposed full in-place reorder and return the minimal update actions.' It uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (proposed reorder), and the output is defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reorder_original_playlist' which actually performs the reorder, and 'create_reordered_playlist_copy_tool' which creates a copy.

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 that this tool should be used before applying a reorder, as it 'validate[s]' a proposal. The constraint 'ordered_playlist_item_ids must contain every existing playlist item exactly once' gives a usage condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, such as using 'reorder_original_playlist' directly.

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