create_player_playback_skip_to

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive action; the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not mention side effects, whether a current playing session is required, the effect of calling with no key (since key is optional), or any response behavior. With the annotation bar lowered, the description still contributes no additional behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words; the endpoint and one arg are stated directly. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter tool, though the terseness leaves out context that other dimensions penalize.

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?

For a single-parameter playback control command, the description fails to give enough context: it doesn't define the key's domain, the relationship to the current play queue, or what happens when key is null. The output schema exists, so return type is covered, but the behavior and selection criteria are insufficient. Siblings such as seek, skip_by, and step_forward/back create ambiguity that this description doesn't address.

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 single parameter 'key' is described as 'The key of the item to skip to,' which gives it a basic meaning beyond the schema's bare type. However, it doesn't explain what kind of key (e.g., a media item ID, proxy key), whether null is a valid explicit value, or how the behavior changes if the argument is omitted. Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description partially compensates but remains thin.

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 states the action 'Skip To' and identifies the resource (player playback), and the arg line clarifies that 'key' is the item to skip to. However, it is fragmentary and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like create_player_playback_seek, create_player_playback_skip_by, or step_forward/back; an agent would have to infer the distinction. It's not a tautology because it adds a small amount of semantic content, but it's barely above that.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an active playback session, a play queue). The description provides no context for selecting this over create_player_playback_seek or skip_by. This is a complete absence of guidance.

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