Add song to queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping detail that entries go into the channel's 'media request queue,' but says nothing about duplicate handling or queue-full/rate-limit behavior that idempotentHint=false implies. Some added value, but modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though it is arguably too terse to earn a full 5 given the operational context a queue-add tool implies.

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?

With only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the essentials are present. However, for a non-idempotent write tool it omits queue-side effects (duplicates, capacity, player state), leaving minor gaps an agent might need.

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 100%, with both 'video' (YouTube id, with example) and 'channel' (defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID/token owner) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a YouTube video to the channel's media request queue.' This clearly distinguishes the add operation from songrequests_remove and read-only siblings like songrequests_queue or songrequests_playing, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the player must be active), and no mention of alternatives such as songrequests_remove or songrequests_youtube_lookup. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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