Remove Playbook Step

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

Discloses archiving and deletion are recoverable and that tasks are unaffected. However, description says 'permanently deleting' while schema indicates deletion is recoverable for 30 days, creating a minor inaccuracy. No annotations provided, so description bears full burden.

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?

Three sentences front-load the action and method, then explain the conflict flow and side effect. No unnecessary words 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?

Covers removal and conflict behavior but lacks details on response format, error conditions, and prerequisites. Given no output schema, description partially compensates by mentioning 'returns a conflict' but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value: only 'Pass mode after the user decides' which is a usage hint. Does not explain the deprecated mode vs resolution distinction.

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 step from a playbook' with specific methods (archive/delete) and conflict behavior. It distinguishes from sibling removal tools by targeting playbook steps uniquely.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-step conflict resolution flow (first call returns conflict, then pass mode). Does not mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like update_playbook_step.

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