spotify_dj_restore

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context that it operates on mutation receipts and can preview or restore, but it does not explain the actual side effects of 'restore' or the role of expected_snapshot_id, leaving behavioral details vague.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and key object. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler.

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 the tool complexity (3 params, mutation semantics, output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of expected_snapshot_id, the difference between preview and restore, or the context of a 'mutation receipt'. Even with an output schema, the agent needs more operational 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?

The schema has 0% coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'mutation receipt' hints at receipt_id, but dry_run and expected_snapshot_id are not described. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Preview or restore') and the resource ('the exact pre-plan order recorded in a mutation receipt'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like spotify_dj_plan, apply, and audit by focusing on restoring from a receipt, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to related tools like spotify_dj_audit or spotify_dj_apply. The only implicit context is that it involves mutation receipts.

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