新建歌单

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context beyond those annotations: it says the call modifies the user's account, needs confirmation, and returns a playlist ID. It does not mention that repeated calls create duplicate playlists even though idempotentHint is false.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and return value first, then follow-up tool, then mutation warning. No repetition of the title or schema content.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, follow-up workflow, and the confirmation requirement. The only real gap is that repeated calls create duplicates because the operation is not idempotent.

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%: the schema itself documents both `name` (minLength 1, maxLength 40) and `private` (default false). The description adds no details about these parameters, which is fine here, but it does not rise above the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("在当前用户账号下新建一个歌单") plus scope and return value ("返回歌单 ID"). It clearly differs from read siblings such as get_playlist and get_user_playlists, which only read data, and it names the follow-up tool update_playlist_tracks.

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?

It tells the agent what to do next ("之后可用 update_playlist_tracks 添加歌曲") and notes the mutation requires confirmation ("会修改用户账号，调用前请确认"). It does not state explicit exclusions, such as when to use like_song or an existing playlist instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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