planDjSet

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds 'immutable, snapshot-bound' and 'Does not change Spotify', which clarifies the side-effect profile. It does not contradict annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with 'Create'. It still omits details about whether the plan is persisted, but given annotation coverage, the added context earns a 4.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence is a short, valuable caveat. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a complex tool with 15 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, yet the description remains minimal. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., that analysisId likely comes from analyzeDjPlaylist), the meaning of 'snapshot-bound', or how the various constraint parameters interact. The output schema offsets some of the completeness gap, but not enough for such a complex operation.

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 15 parameters, but it only mentions high-level balancing factors (tempo, Camelot compatibility, energy arc, artist spacing, constraints, data quality). Many parameters like beamWidth, riskThreshold, peakTokens, openingToken, closingToken, absoluteAnchors, and lockedTransitions are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('immutable, snapshot-bound professional DJ set-order plan'), and it enumerates the balancing factors ('tempo, Camelot compatibility, energy arc, artist spacing, constraints, and data quality'). The closing 'Does not change Spotify' clearly distinguishes it from applyDjSetPlan and other mutation tools.

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 is the planning step that does not affect Spotify, implying it should be used before applyDjSetPlan. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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