创建网易云歌单

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent write. The description adds useful context: the playlist is created under the current logged-in account and requires explicit user confirmation. It does not explain duplicate-creation behavior or failure modes, but those are partially anticipated by idempotentHint=false and the creation scope.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the critical confirmation rule is separated into its own sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the core invocation requirements—name, confirmation, and optional privacy—are discoverable from the description plus input schema. Missing error/return details are minor because the user-facing confirmation condition is clearly stated and defaults are provided by the schema.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does this by mapping 'public or private' to the isPrivate parameter and restating the confirmation requirement for the confirm parameter. The name parameter is self-evident from the schema constraints, so the overall parameter meaning is adequately conveyed.

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 action (create) on a specific resource (Netease playlist) with scope ('under current logged-in account') and visibility ('public or private'). This operationally distinguishes it from sibling tools like netease_playlist_add_songs, netease_playlist_get_songs, and netease_playlist_list, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Contains a clear invocation condition: call only after the user explicitly confirms this creation, which is essential for a mutation tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but sibling tools are operationally distinct enough that the intended use is clear.

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