Delete a playbook while keeping its rules and detaching any rules that used it as their primary playbook, so you can retire it without losing rule data.
Delete a playbook; its rules are kept, and rules whose primary playbook it was are detached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious side effect: rules survive the deletion but lose their primary-playbook association. It omits whether deletion is reversible, what permissions are needed, and what happens if the id is unknown, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence states the action first and the cascade behavior second. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the crucial fact an agent needs — that rules are preserved and detached rather than destroyed — is present. Missing are failure behavior (unknown id), permission requirements, and any indication of return value or confirmation of detach count.
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?
With one required string parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description never explicitly identifies `id` as the playbook identifier, though 'Delete a playbook' makes that reading natural. It adds no format, naming-convention, or lookup guidance beyond that implication.
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?
Specific verb plus resource ('Delete a playbook') with scope spelled out, and it is plainly distinguishable from siblings like playbook_add, playbook_get, rule_remove, and rules_import. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.
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 word 'Delete' implies the usage context, and the description hints that this is playbook-level removal rather than rule-level removal (which maps to rule_remove). However, it never states preconditions, when-not-to-use, or what to check first, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.