Create a new user playlist in Music by supplying a playlist name. The playlist may sync through the music library.
Create a new user playlist in Music. May sync through the music library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds only 'May sync through the music library' — a vague side-effect hint with no detail on what syncing means, whether it can create duplicates, or what permissions are needed. This is thin for a create operation.
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 the action front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence is the weakest link because 'may sync' is hedged and imprecise, but overall the text is tight.
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 create tool with no output schema, the description should say something about what is returned (e.g., the new playlist identifier) or whether the playlist is created empty. None of that is present, and the 'may sync' hedge leaves the agent uncertain about the outcome of the call.
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 0% for the single required parameter 'name', and the description never mentions how the name is used, any length constraint (500 chars), or whether duplicate names are allowed. With one documented-by-name-only param, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Create a new user playlist in Music'), which is enough to separate it from sibling read tools like apple_music_list_playlists and from apple_music_add_tracks_to_playlist. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apple_music_add_tracks_to_playlist, nor any prerequisites (e.g., Music app running, library access). The only contextual note is 'May sync through the music library,' which is a side-effect remark, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.