Create Playlist

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-idempotent write operation, so the description doesn't contradict them. It adds meaningful behavior: server-side catalog matching, all-at-once track writing, ISRC precision, and dry-run semantics that bypass actual writes.

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 English description is front-loaded and compact: primary behavior, key mode, and alternative tool all in two sentences. The Chinese repetition adds length but serves a bilingual audience and doesn't introduce fluff.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call path: what to provide, how matching works, dry-run mode, and which sibling handles existing playlists. It doesn't describe the response shape or error cases, but that is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how 'tracks' are matched server-side, that ISRCs are more precise/faster, and that dry_run prevents writing – clarifying relationships between parameters that the raw schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new playlist') plus the input form ('Title - Artist' strings or ISRCs), and explicitly distinguishes itself from am_add_tracks. The Chinese portion reinforces '全自动建歌单的主入口', making its role unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use dry_run=true for verification without writing, and directs users to am_add_tracks for existing playlists. This gives clear selection criteria among the sibling tools.

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