Preview moving folder items

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The word 'preview' adds meaningful context that no state actually changes yet, but the description never explains what the preview produces or how the commit step consumes it. There is a mild tension between 'preview' (implying read-only) and readOnlyHint=false, though the staging behavior likely justifies the annotation, so this is not a true contradiction.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is part of why the parameter and workflow gaps remain unfilled.

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 described. However, for a mutation-staging tool with three fully undocumented required parameters and a preview/commit two-step pattern shared with many siblings, the description omits the essential operational context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does. It clarifies that item_trns holds playlist or folder TRNs, but the critical distinction between folder_id (source) and destination_folder_id (target) is left entirely ambiguous, as is the accepted TRN format.

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 names a specific verb (preview moving), the resource being moved (playlist or folder TRNs), and the target (a folder), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from add_items_to_folder or move_items_to_root. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as tidal_preview_add_items_to_folder (which adds rather than moves), tidal_preview_move_playlist_item_by_id, or tidal_preview_move_items_to_root. The 'preview' prefix strongly implies a dry-run that must be followed by tidal_commit_action, but that workflow is never stated.

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