delete_backup

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation, disclosing irreversibility, the sidecar deletion, confirmation-gating (dry_run default true, refusal when client can't prompt, SPOTIFY_MCP_CONFIRM=never bypasses), and path restrictions. This is rich, transparent behavioral context that an agent needs for a destructive operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 five sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value—sidecar deletion, irreversibility, confirmation gating, path restrictions—without redundancy. It's concise and efficiently structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 critical aspects: what is deleted, irreversibility, confirmation steps, path safeguards. It does not describe the return format or error behavior for non-existent files, but for a mutation tool with a destructiveHint and full parameter documentation, the provided context is largely sufficient. A small gap remains around response/error details, hence 4.

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%, so parameters (file, dry_run, response_format) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what's in the schema, and the schema entries are themselves descriptive (e.g., dry_run explains default and how to override). 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 states a specific verb (Delete), resource (library backup file and its metadata sidecar), and scope (from SPOTIFY_MCP_BACKUP_DIR). It clearly differentiates from list/restore/backup creation tools by emphasizing irreversibility and the sidecar. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to use it (to delete a backup), but the description does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide conditional guidance like 'use this only when you intend permanent removal' or point to restoration tools for recovery. It focuses on behavior rather than decision context, so it falls short of strong usage guidance.

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