playlist_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two most important traits — the operation is DESTRUCTIVE and requires confirm=true — but omits what exactly is destroyed (library entry vs. playlist object), whether it is reversible, and what happens if confirm is absent or false.

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 terse sentences with zero filler; the destructive warning and the confirm requirement are front-loaded where an agent will read them before invoking.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the essential safety gate but leaves the blast radius and reversibility unstated. Adequate to prevent an accidental destructive call, incomplete for understanding the outcome.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It explains the semantics of confirm ("needs confirm=true"), which is the non-obvious one, but adds nothing about playlist_id's expected format or source. Partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Delete a playlist") and the parenthetical "(unfollow)" clarifies that this removes the playlist from the user's library rather than emptying its tracks, which usefully separates it from the sibling playlist_empty. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 gives a hard precondition ("needs confirm=true"), which is genuine usage guidance, but says nothing about when to choose this over playlist_empty or playlist_remove, nor about irreversibility or follow-up steps. Usage context is implied by the destructive framing rather than spelled out.

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