Modify an existing playlist for a radio station, updating its title, description, color, or shuffle settings.
Modify an existing playlist for a station
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | Color in full hex format | |
| title | No | Playlist title | |
| shuffled | No | Whether the playlist is shuffled | |
| station_id | Yes | The station ID | |
| description | No | Playlist description | |
| playlist_id | Yes | The playlist ID | |
| shuffle_opts | No | Shuffle options object |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'Modify' but never states whether this is a partial update (only supplied fields changed) or a full replacement, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to omitted fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, these are significant gaps.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. For a seven-parameter mutation tool it does not carry enough weight to be considered well-structured.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the definition is too thin for an agent to call confidently. It omits partial-update semantics, permissions, and error behavior, leaving the description inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the nested shuffle_opts object. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb ('Modify') and resource ('an existing playlist'), scoped to a station. This distinguishes it from the get_/add_/delete_playlist siblings in the toolset. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or clarifying how it differs from track-level operations like add_track_to_playlist.
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 add_playlist or delete_playlist, nor any prerequisite such as the playlist already existing or required permissions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.