Create a Spotify playlist by name, keeping it private unless public is set true. Updates the user's library and can optionally add a description or force creation if a same-name playlist exists.
Create a playlist. Needs name. Private unless public=true. Changes the user's library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Playlist name. | |
| force | No | Create even if one by that name exists. Default false. | |
| public | No | Default false. | |
| description | No | Optional. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the side effect ('Changes the user's library') and the visibility default, both real behavioral facts an agent needs. It stops short of stating auth requirements or error/duplicate handling.
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?
Four terse sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (action, required input, visibility default, side effect), with the core action front-loaded and zero filler.
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 4-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers action, required input, default state, and library side effect. It omits duplicate/'force' semantics (partly in schema) and any failure modes, a minor gap.
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 four parameters; per the rubric that sets a baseline of 3. The description reinforces name as required and public's default, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('Create a playlist'), which is unambiguous against read siblings like get_playlists or find_playlist. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby write siblings add_to_playlist or add_current_to_playlist, but the create-a-new-entity sense is clear.
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 conveys the required parameter ('Needs name') and the default visibility ('Private unless public=true'), which is implied usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over add_to_playlist or find_playlist, nor any prerequisites or duplicate-name behavior routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.