delete_watchlistDeletes one of your watchlists including its memberships, and frees the watchlist slot and followed-profile slots it used. Free to call. Works for lists created through the API or in the web app; only the owner can delete a list. Cost: free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watchlistId | Yes | API-created watchlist id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is very transparent about destructive effects: it deletes the watchlist, its memberships, and frees slots. However, the annotations set destructiveHint=false, which directly contradicts the clearly destructive behavior described. Per the scoring rule, this contradiction forces a score of 1.
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?
Three concise sentences front-load the action and side effects, then provide ownership, compatibility, and cost details. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.
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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is deleted, side effects (slot freeing), compatibility, ownership restriction, and cost. The lack of return-value details is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 covers the single parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by clarifying that the watchlistId is valid for lists created through the API or in the web app, broadening the schema's narrow 'API-created watchlist id' description.
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 uses the specific verb 'Deletes' with the resource 'one of your watchlists' and clarifies the full scope ('including its memberships'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_watchlist_profiles by stating the entire list and its memberships are removed.
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 gives concrete usage context: only the owner can delete, it works for both API-created and web-app lists, and it frees slots. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but 'including its memberships' implies that removing only certain profiles should be done with a different tool. A slightly more explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement would make it a 5.
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 clearly distinct purposes (search, profile management, post retrieval, async jobs, billing). Some overlap exists among get_trending_outliers, niche_trends, and search_outliers, but their descriptions differentiate free/unauthenticated, niche-specific, and filtered search, so an agent can usually pick correctly.
The vast majority of tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (crawl_profile, get_post, remix_post, track_profile). The main exception is 'niche_trends', which is a noun phrase, and the minor spelling of 'topup' instead of 'top_up'. Otherwise, naming is consistent enough to predict tool behavior.
At 21 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the broad scope (search, crawling, tracking, media handling, transcripts, remixing, billing) justifies the number. Each tool serves a distinct function, and none feel redundant, so the count is reasonable for the domain.
The tool set covers the core workflow well: searching outliers, crawling/tracking profiles, fetching posts/media/transcripts, and generating remixes. However, there is no way to list all posts for a specific profile (only 'recent tracked posts' via get_profile and an incremental feed via get_tracked_updates), which is a notable gap for deep creator analysis.