google_youtube_create_playlistCreate a YouTube playlist with custom title and description, set privacy to private, public, or unlisted. Organize videos for your channel.
Create a private playlist for the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Playlist title. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| description | No | Playlist description. | |
| privacyStatus | No | Privacy (default private). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a private playlist' without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, that the privacy is configurable, or that this is a write operation. It also implies a fixed privacy level that contradicts the schema's configurable privacyStatus.
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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant or filler content exists, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention that the playlist is created in the user's YouTube account, that privacy is configurable via the privacyStatus parameter, and does not indicate any return value or side effects. The misleading 'private' claim adds to the incompleteness.
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?
The schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states; it merely repeats the default privacy setting without explaining parameter usage or relationships.
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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'playlist', and specifies it is for the user. However, it incorrectly claims the playlist is always private, while the schema allows public and unlisted options via the privacyStatus parameter. This is a minor inaccuracy but the core purpose 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like google_youtube_delete_playlist, google_youtube_add_to_playlist, or google_youtube_list_playlists. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.