sortPlaylistByBpm

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds that 'Dry-run is the safe default,' which informs users that the tool can perform destructive reordering and that the dryRun parameter should be used for safety. It also labels the tool as 'Legacy,' suggesting it may be outdated. This provides context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second gives an alternative and a safety tip. No unnecessary words.

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 6 parameters, destructive annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the high-level purpose and a dry-run hint. It lacks details on mode behaviors, return values, side effects, and feature overrides, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly without additional context.

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. It only hints at the 'dryRun' parameter ('Dry-run is the safe default') and the purpose implies mode 'tempoEnergy,' but it does not explain the 'mode' enum values, 'source' options, 'allowPartial,' or 'featureOverrides.' With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'tempo/energy ordering utility,' specifying what it does (orders playlists by tempo/energy) and distinguishes itself from the professional alternative 'planDjSet' by labeling itself 'Legacy.' This aligns with a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 explicitly directs users to 'Use planDjSet for professional set planning,' naming an alternative tool and implying this is for legacy/simple cases. It also advises 'Dry-run is the safe default,' giving a usage tip. However, it does not elaborate on specific scenarios where this tool should be preferred over other sorting or reordering tools, so it's not a full 5.

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