playbooks_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement and the HTTP endpoint, but it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, what happens if the playbook is in use, or what the response contains. Some transparency exists, but gaps remain.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. The permission note and HTTP endpoint are useful, and the example body adds value, though it could be trimmed. Overall, it earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 delete operation with one nested parameter, the description covers the essential context: what it does, who can run it, and the HTTP endpoint. However, the filter/schema mismatch and the absence of any response/return value information leave gaps in completeness for an agent invoking 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example body, but the example uses 'filters' while the schema defines 'filter', creating a mismatch. It also does not explicitly explain the 'field' and 'value' parameters, leaving the agent reliant on the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 opens with 'Delete a playbook'—a specific verb and resource—and immediately clarifies the deletion is by name or ID. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like playbooks_get and playbooks_insert, which serve different actions on the same resource.

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 explicitly states that Instance Administrator permissions are required, which tells the agent who should invoke it. It provides clear context for the operation, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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