Add to Spotify Queue

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent (adding duplicates possible), and not destructive. The description does not contradict these hints, but it adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects (e.g., appending to the end of the queue, requiring an active device) or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description meets the minimum bar but does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the structured data.

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 a single sentence that leads with the primary action and then states the required identifier formats. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. There is no verbose restating of the title, and the sentence is easy to scan.

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 tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description covers the main identifier logic but omits any mention of device_id or the implications of adding to a queue (e.g., whether an active device is required). While an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description leaves the optional device context ambiguous. The overall picture is adequate for a simple action but lacks some contextual detail that would make it fully self-contained.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It usefully states 'Provide a Spotify URI or both item_type and item_id,' which clarifies the mutually exclusive relationship between uri and (item_type, item_id), a crucial detail given that all parameters are optional in the schema. However, it does not explain the 'device_id' parameter at all, leaving a gap for how to target a specific playback device. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 states the tool's action: 'Add one track or podcast episode to the Spotify queue.' The verb 'Add' is specific, the resource is 'Spotify queue', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spotify_queue (view queue), spotify_play (immediate playback), and library save tools. The alternative identification methods (URI or item_type+item_id) are also mentioned, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when you want to add to the queue) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as spotify_play for immediate playback or spotify_queue for viewing the queue. There are no exclusions or 'when not to use' statements. The brief phrasing suggests the intended use case but leaves the comparative guidance to the agent to infer.

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