spotify_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say what happens with no active playback, whether skipping requires an active device, or how device_id affects targeting (active-device default vs. explicit device). For a playback-control mutation, this is a thin 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?

Four words, front-loaded, zero waste. For a single-action tool the description is appropriately sized and reads instantly.

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?

A simple one-optional-param tool with no output schema needs little, but the description omits device targeting semantics and failure conditions. Adequate minimum viable coverage, with clear gaps around the optional parameter's effect.

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 100%, so the single device_id parameter (Optional: Device ID) is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about how device_id changes behavior or what the default is.

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?

States a specific verb+resource action ('skip to next track') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like spotify_pause, spotify_play, and spotify_previous. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts against those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus spotify_previous or spotify_transfer_playback, nor any prerequisite such as an active playback session. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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