添加歌曲到网易云歌单

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a safety-relevant behavior: '修改前会再次校验歌单归属' (re-validates playlist ownership before modifying). This is useful but does not disclose other behaviors such as duplicate handling, rate limits, or partial success behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

One concise sentence that states the core action, quantity range, ownership constraint, and a behavioral safeguard. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, range, and ownership validation. It does not explain failure modes or duplicate behavior, but for a simple add-to-playlist operation this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains that songIds must be 1–100 song IDs and that the operation applies to the current account's owned playlist. The confirm parameter's purpose is partly in the schema, but the description's mention of validation before modifying gives it practical context.

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 clearly states the verb (add), the resource (songs to a playlist), the range (1–100), and the account-ownership constraint (current account's owned playlist). It distinguishes this from siblings like netease_playlist_remove_songs and netease_playlist_create.

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?

Explicitly says 'current account's owned playlist', informing when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the distinction clear. The ownership check is a use-condition that helps an agent avoid attempting to add to playlists the user does not own.

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