enqueue_video

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does state the key behavior that playback is not started, which is the non-obvious part. It says nothing about duplicate handling, what happens when the playlist is empty or in another mode, whether the state is persisted, or what the output schema returns.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and its key constraint, followed by a short Args block that covers the only parameter. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a state-mutating queue operation with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves out duplicate and error behavior that an agent would need in order to call it safely and predictably.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single, required video_path parameter. It does add two useful facts: the path is relative to a video folder and should come from get_available_videos, which prevents guessed paths. It does not give an example value or describe error behavior for a bad path, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('add a video to the end of the playlist') and adds a scope qualifier ('without starting it') that separates it from playback tools like play_playlist_item and show_video. An agent can pick this over its siblings without inspecting any 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?

It gives a clear usage context (queue up content without interrupting playback) and points to get_available_videos as the source of valid paths, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g. when the playlist mode is single-item or the video is already queued.

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