Remove Playbook

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses key behaviors: archiving hides from active views (recoverable), permanent delete is actually recoverable for 30 days, effects on run history and tasks, and the conflict flow. This exceeds expectations for a tool without 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?

Four sentences, each adding value: first states purpose, second explains conflict flow, third covers preservation of history and tasks. No redundant information. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the interactive nature (two-step), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately explains inputs, effects, and behavior. It covers all user-facing aspects needed to use the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds critical context: the deprecated 'mode' parameter, the meaning of each 'resolution' enum value, and the overall two-step flow. This goes beyond raw schema information.

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?

Description clearly states 'Remove a playbook' with specific actions (archive/permanent delete) and distinguishes from sibling remove_* tools which target different entities. The two-step conflict resolution is unique to this tool.

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?

Description explains the two-step process: first call returns a conflict, then pass mode after user decides. It also notes that run history and tasks are unaffected. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over other deletion tools or specify prerequisites.

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