remove_saved_tracks

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

No annotations or hints for a destructive mutation are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only restates the core effect — removing tracks — and says nothing about scope (targeting only the current user's own library), permanent/irreversible nature, handling of already-removed or invalid IDs, error behavior, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single clean, active-voice sentence that states the action and target with zero filler. It is efficient and well formed for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity that earns this score is also what leaves behavioral gaps for other dimensions.

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 this is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. The parameter shape is simple and the scope is hinted, but an agent still has no indication of side effects, return signal, failure modes, or operational prerequisites, so meaningful gap exists.

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, but it only paraphrases the parameter at the tool level ('tracks') without explaining track_ids semantics. It does not clarify the accepted ID format (e.g., Spotify URI vs. raw ID), whether tracks must already exist in Liked Songs, or what the array limits imply in practice.

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 the action verb and a specifically named resource, 'Liked Songs', which is the distinct collection this tool targets and tells the agent apart from playlist-based tools like remove_tracks. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with remove_tracks or state which resource it does not apply to, leaving the disambiguation implicit.

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 intent is implied: an agent thinking 'remove this track from my Liked Songs' can infer this is the right tool, and 'Liked Songs' provides recognizable context. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor a pointer to alternatives such as remove_tracks, so usage guidance is left to inference.

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