Delete one playthrough

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: it specifies exactly what gets destroyed (review and journal sessions) and the preview-and-confirm mechanism. This goes well beyond the annotation's simple destructive flag and clearly explains the tool's side effects.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second provides the essential confirmation workflow. Well front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 tool, the description covers the full scope of deletion and the confirmation process. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, an agent has all necessary context to use the tool safely and correctly, without needing an output schema.

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 100% and the confirmation_token parameter in the schema already explains the two-step behavior in detail. The description adds no new information about the game or playthrough_id parameters, so it doesn't improve on the schema's semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 single playthrough log' – a specific verb and resource – and then clarifies the scope by adding 'including its review and any journal sessions attached to it.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling delete tools like delete_list and delete_comment.

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 the required two-step confirmation flow: 'call once without a token to see what would be deleted.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke without a token and that a second call with the token is needed for the actual deletion, which is strong usage guidance.

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