spotify_dj_apply

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'snapshot checks,' 'receipts,' and 'fresh verification' suggest safety mechanisms, which are not present in the annotations. However, these terms are not explained, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires auth, or returns a receipt in a specific format. Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds some, but not rich, context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core purpose. It wastes no words and maintains a clear structure. However, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness as a complete guide.

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?

Given that this is a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false) with three parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning or usage of the parameters, the difference between preview and actual application, or the role of expected_snapshot_id. Even though an output schema exists, the operational workflow is unclear, making the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention plan_id, dry_run, or expected_snapshot_id at all. The schema itself provides only titles and defaults, leaving the semantics of these parameters entirely unexplained. The description provides no parameter-related value.

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 pair 'Preview or apply' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a plan.' It distinguishes from siblings like spotify_dj_plan (which likely creates plans) and spotify_dj_restore (which restores). However, terms like 'snapshot checks' and 'fresh verification' are vague and could benefit from elaboration.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Preview or apply' but does not explain when to use dry_run versus a real apply, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., restore, audit) for comparison. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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