Delete playlist

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: the deletion is permanent, limited to the playlist owned by the user, and does not delete the tracks themselves. This adds value beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states action, scope, and side-effect boundary; the second gives a crucial safety instruction. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 output schema, the description covers permanence, ownership, non-deletion of tracks, and the need for confirmation. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'account' and 'playlist' are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('playlist owned by the logged-in user'), and clarifies what it does NOT do ('tracks themselves are not deleted'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like delete_track and remove_playlist_tracks.

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 states the ownership precondition ('owned by the logged-in user') and a strong safety guideline ('Get explicit confirmation first'). It implies when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases like removing tracks while keeping the playlist.

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