Preview moving items to root

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. the tool may modify state, while the name and description both present it as a 'Preview' (a dry-run that should not change anything). This is a direct conflict between the stated behavior and the structured annotation, so the description fails to give the agent reliable behavioral information. destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false add further ambiguity for a preview operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the operation is stated first. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a preview tool feeding a commit workflow the description omits what the preview produces and how it is applied. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and contradictory annotations, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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. It hints that items are 'TRNs' and that the destination is the collection root, but it never explains what folder_id refers to (the source folder? the containing folder?) or the item_trns format/limits, leaving both required parameters under-specified.

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 operation (preview moving), the resource (playlist or folder TRNs), and the destination (collection root), which is enough to separate it from tidal_preview_move_items_to_folder or the by-id/by-index move variants. It is clear without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 of when to use this preview versus the commit path (tidal_commit_action) or the non-root move variants. For a 'preview' tool the crucial guidance – that this is a dry-run whose result must be committed separately – is entirely absent.

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