netease_play_heart_mode

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the default seed is liked music, and the queue auto-fetches the next batch of recommendations when exhausted. It omits account/permission requirements and whether current playback is interrupted.

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?

One front-loaded clause gives the action, the second gives the key behavioral payoff; nothing is padded. The semicolon-joined structure is dense but serviceable.

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 output schema and zero schema descriptions on five parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing how to supply seedSongId/playlistId, what count does, and what requestId must contain. The behavior story is present, but the call-construction story is not.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails to: it never explains seedSongId vs playlistId, the mode enum values (sequence/shuffle/repeat_one), count, or requestId. Only the implicit default seed basis is hinted at.

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 ('开启网易云心动模式') that names a distinct feature rather than a generic playback command. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling netease_play_mode, which an agent could easily mistake for the same thing.

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?

The description implies when this is appropriate (when you want a personalized radio seeded from liked music with endless auto-refill), but never states when to prefer netease_play_mode, netease_play_liked, or netease_play_playlist instead. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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