music_play_track

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the automation:Music permission requirement and a version tag, which is genuine value beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about the approval flow implied by _approvalId or what playback state results.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by a compact metadata bracket. Nothing is redundant, though the bracketed version tag is of limited use to an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The permission note closes the main auth gap; the only remaining omission is behavior when the ID does not resolve to a track.

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 coverage is 67%; the required 'id' parameter has an empty schema description, and the phrase 'by database ID' is the only thing giving it meaning. The other two parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the description neither compensates fully nor adds much beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Play') and resource ('a track in the local Music library') plus the lookup key ('by database ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from music_search and music_control. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer music_control or music_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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