delete_playbookPermanently delete a playbook and all of its contents (persona, skills, memory, API keys, canvas, and secrets). This cannot be undone. Requires playbooks:write or full permission, and only the owner may delete. Do not use this to reset a persona (delete_persona) or remove a single skill or memory; those have dedicated tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playbook_id | Yes | UUID of the playbook to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states destructive consequences: 'Permanently delete' and 'This cannot be undone'. It also discloses the full scope of deletion: persona, skills, memory, API keys, canvas, and secrets. It further adds permission and ownership requirements, which go beyond the annotations. The annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) align with the description - no contradiction.
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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the most critical info (permanently delete). It efficiently packs warnings, permissions, and exclusions into additional sentences. The only minor adjustment would be that the description could be slightly more concise, but it earns its space with high-value content.
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 destructive mutation tool with a single parameter, the description is complete. It covers consequences, scope, permissions, ownership, and alternative usage. The annotations and schema handle the rest (idempotency, parameter UUID). No output schema needed for a delete operation.
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 already provides 100% coverage with a single parameter (playbook_id) described as 'UUID of the playbook to delete'. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details but that's okay since the schema fully covers it. No additional semantic value is needed beyond what the schema provides.
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 action: 'Permanently delete a playbook and all of its contents', specifying the exact resource (playbook) and its scope (all contents). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives: 'Do not use this to reset a persona (delete_persona) or remove a single skill or memory'.
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 provides explicit usage guidance including when to use (deleting a playbook), when NOT to use (resetting persona, removing single skill/memory), and even names the alternative tools like delete_persona. It also covers the permission requirement ('Requires playbooks:write or full permission') and ownership restriction ('only the owner may delete').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., delete_memory vs delete_skill vs delete_run), and even similar operations like read_memory vs search_memory vs get_memory_context have clearly differentiated purposes. The descriptions are detailed and explicitly cross-reference other tools to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, read_*, etc.), with plurals used uniformly for list operations (list_playbooks, list_runs, list_secrets). No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs; the naming is highly predictable and systematic.
With 48 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent set of domains (playbooks, personas, skills, memory, canvas, runs, secrets, MCP servers, and discovery). While this exceeds the typical 3-15 range, each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the comprehensive playbook management scope, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for every entity type: playbooks, personas, skills (including versioning and rollback), memory (including hierarchical tasks and tiering), canvas (with locking and patching), runs, secrets (including rotation and usage), and MCP servers. Additionally, find_tools covers discovery for federated tools, leaving no apparent dead ends.