delete_listPermanently delete a saved list and everything in it. This cannot be undone — confirm with the user before calling, then set confirmed=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | The list's id (from list_lists) | |
| confirmed | Yes | Set true only after the user explicitly confirms permanent deletion |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: 'cannot be undone', user confirmation step, and the constraint on the confirmed parameter. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but description enriches understanding of consequences.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action and consequence. Every word earns its place. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given destructive nature, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all essential information: permanence, user confirmation requirement, and parameter usage. Agent can safely invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description for list_id ('from list_lists') adds minor context, and the confirmed parameter description restates the schema. No significant semantic addition 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?
Clearly states 'permanently delete a saved list and everything in it', specifying the verb (delete) and resource (saved list). Distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_list_item (item removal) and create_list (creation).
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?
Explicitly instructs to confirm with the user before calling and to set confirmed=true. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the destructive nature and confirmation requirement are clear.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes. Overlap exists between search/search_sponsors and fetch/get_sponsor, but descriptions clarify the different use cases (deep-research compatibility vs. full structured queries). Overall, an agent can reliably differentiate tools.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., create_list, get_sponsor), but two tools (fetch, search) are single verbs without a noun, breaking consistency. This introduces minor confusion about their scope.
17 tools is a reasonable number for a podcast sponsorship database, covering search, retrieval, list management, and contact operations. It's not overly heavy nor too thin for the domain.
The tool surface covers primary operations: searching sponsors/podcasts, retrieving details, managing lists, and handling contacts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update sponsor data, but that's likely read-only), but core workflows are well-supported.