Preview playlist creation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that the result includes ordered track IDs, which is genuinely useful, but it never clarifies whether the preview actually persists a playlist or resolves/validates track_ids — the key ambiguity for a 'preview' tool.

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, well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero padding. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly what leaves parameters and usage unexplained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition is thin for a 4-parameter tool: no parameter guidance, no clarification of how the preview relates to tidal_commit_create_playlist, and no statement of whether anything is persisted. For a preview/commit workflow this leaves meaningful gaps.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden — and it doesn't. It only hints at track_ids via 'ordered track IDs' and says nothing about title, description, or parent_folder_id, leaving the agent to guess at the creation payload.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Preview a new playlist.' The word 'preview' implicitly separates it from the commit sibling, and 'its exact ordered track IDs' clarifies the output. It stops short of naming tidal_commit_create_playlist explicitly, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Preview' suggests this is the dry-run step before tidal_commit_create_playlist, but the description never says when to call this versus the commit tool or whether the preview must precede a commit. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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