update-playlist-item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the quota cost, which is useful, and implies mutation through 'move', but it omits important details such as authorization requirements, side effects on other playlist items, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 consists of two short, information-dense sentences: one stating the purpose and one noting the quota cost. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description covers the core purpose and a key operational detail (quota cost), but it lacks guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, and expected behavior. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, a bit more context, such as note that item positions shift after reordering, would improve completeness.

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%, so all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; for example, it doesn't clarify why videoId is required or how position interacts with other items. Thus, the description provides no value beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Move' and identifies the resource 'playlist item' with the action 'to a new position (reorder)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-playlist, which likely focuses on updating playlist metadata rather than item order.

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 clear context that this tool is for reordering playlist items but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The mention of 'Costs 50 quota units' is an operational constraint rather than a usage guideline, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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