reorder_playlist_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states that the operation mutates playlist order and highlights the non-obvious 0-based indexing convention. It also indicates the return value is a status dictionary, giving agents useful behavioral expectations, though it does not cover prerequisites or error conditions.

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 well-organized with trigger phrases, args, and returns, and the usage examples add practical value. There is slight redundancy: the opening 'Move/reorder...' is restated by 'This function moves...', so not every sentence earns its place, but the structure is otherwise clear and front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description provides sufficient context: all parameters are documented, the 0-based indexing behavior is explained, and the return type is described as a status dictionary even without an output schema. It omits detailed return fields and edge-case behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates by defining playlist_id, from_index, and to_index, including their roles and the 0-based convention. It also marks all three as required, matching the schema. This is exactly the kind of parameter explanation needed when the schema provides only titles.

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 opening sentence names a specific action ('Move/reorder') on a specific resource ('a track within a TIDAL playlist'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling add/remove/delete/update playlist tools. It also explains the operation further with 'moves a track from one position to another,' removing any ambiguity.

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 an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' section with concrete natural-language examples and a catch-all ('Any request to change the order of tracks in a playlist'). It does not explicitly list when-not cases or alternatives, but among the siblings this is the only reorder operation, so the usage context is clear.

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