create_playlist

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description notes the default visibility is private, but this merely repeats the schema default rather than adding new behavioral context (no auth, side-effect, or idempotency detail).

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, front-loaded with the action and default behavior, with no wasted words. The mention of the return value is redundant given the output schema but very brief.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the undocumented required title parameter and lack of any usage or permission context leave a modest gap for a mutation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only alludes to the visibility default ('по умолчанию приватный') and says nothing about the required 'title' parameter. It fails to compensate for the documentation 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Создаёт новый плейлист'), which clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like list_my_playlists and get_playlist_tracks. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative, but the create action is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The intent (make a new playlist) is only implied by the verb, and nothing routes the agent versus siblings like add_tracks_to_playlist.

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