Preview moving a playlist item

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word "Preview." It never explains whether the preview mutates anything, what state a later commit expects, whether auth is required, or what happens if two items share the same media ID — the key risk for an ID-addressed move.

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; the verb and identifier scheme come first. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as an under-specified one-liner rather than a deliberately compact summary.

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?

Though an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description omits two of three parameters at 0% schema coverage and never situates the tool in the preview-then-commit pattern. Nothing tells the agent that this is a dry run whose result must be committed separately.

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, and it only glosses media_id ("identified by media ID"). Neither position (target index/slot) nor playlist_id is clarified, and the ordering semantics of a move — where the item lands relative to removed/insert positions — is left entirely undocumented.

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") and resource ("item"), and the phrase "identified by media ID" differentiates it from the sibling tools that move items by index (tidal_preview_move_playlist_item_by_index, ...by_indices). It falls short of a 5 only because "preview" — the single most important qualifier — is left undefined relative to the commit workflow.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the preview/commit relationship (e.g. tidal_commit_action), and no statement of when to choose media-ID addressing over index-based addressing. Sibling names alone are the only routing signal.

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