merge_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares 'Side effects: none — the request is validated and refused', states that no track is ever deleted, and specifies the returned code (CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE) with API evidence in details. It also enumerates validation edge cases with their error codes (WRONG_TYPE, BAD_INPUT).

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?

Front-loads the key fact (the API cannot merge) before side effects, an example, and edge cases, using labeled sub-sections that scan quickly. Dense but every sentence conveys distinct, actionable information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies return-code behavior, side-effect profile, and error conditions, which is nearly everything an agent needs. A little more on the structure of the details payload or an explicit 'do not call to merge' directive would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that both indexes must refer to Group Tracks, must differ, and must not nest, and that delete_empty_source=True is rejected with BAD_INPUT. The positional example merge_groups(5, 1) helps map the two index arguments, though it does not spell out which position is source vs destination.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('move one group's members into another') and immediately qualifies it with the crucial fact that Live's API cannot perform it, so an agent understands this tool never succeeds as named. This distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like move_track_to_group and ungroup_track.

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 strongly implies the tool should not be relied on for actual merging (the API refuses the request), which is implicit negative guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. move_track_to_group, ungroup_track) or states explicitly when an agent should still call it.

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