codivupload-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Create Playlist' implies a write operation but offers no details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success (e.g., returns a playlist ID). This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Create Playlist', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but for this dimension alone, it scores high due to zero verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, side effects, or return values, and doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data. For a creation tool, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (e.g., name, profile_id, loop_enabled, media_asset_ids). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that media_asset_ids are optional initial bindings) or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.

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 'Create Playlist' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'post_agency_playlists' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of playlist is being created (e.g., for an agency, with media assets) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'post_integrations_youtube_playlists', which might create YouTube-specific playlists. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a profile_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_agency_playlists' for retrieval or 'post_agency_media' for other creation operations. The description provides zero context for usage decisions.

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