update_playlist_metadata

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update rule (at least one of title or description must be provided), the return shape, and post-processing steps for the agent. However, it does not mention that a TIDAL login is required (tidal_login is a sibling tool), nor what happens on error or when the playlist is not found.

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-structured with distinct sections (purpose, usage triggers, constraint, processing steps, args, returns) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It loses a point for redundancy: 'Update a TIDAL playlist's title and/or description' is nearly restated by 'This function updates the title and/or description of a user's TIDAL playlist.'

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 mutation tool it covers the essentials — what it does, when to use it, the at-least-one validation rule, and how to present results. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the actual return status values, error cases, and the authentication prerequisite given that tidal_login exists among siblings.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: playlist_id as 'the TIDAL ID of the playlist,' title and description as new values. It also adds the crucial constraint that at least one optional field must be provided — information not derivable from the schema, which shows null defaults for both.

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 specific verb+resource+scope: 'Update a TIDAL playlist's title and/or description.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling playlist tools like create_tidal_playlist, delete_tidal_playlist, add_tracks_to_playlist, and reorder_playlist_tracks, which operate on different aspects of playlists.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHENEVER A USER ASKS FOR' block lists concrete user intents — renaming, changing description — plus a catch-all ('Any request to modify playlist metadata'). This provides clear when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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