lc_delete_song

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that force=true is required and that the operation is irreversible ('no undo'), which are critical safety traits. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on other data, or what happens if the song does not exist, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences: 'Delete a song file.' states the action, and 'Requires force=true; there is no undo.' conveys critical caveats. There is zero filler; every word earns its place.

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 simple deletion tool, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, that force is required, and that there is no undo. It does not explain return values or clarify the roles of 'folder' and 'song', but these are minor for a deletion operation where success/failure is typically obvious.

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 only 33% (only 'force' has a description). The description reinforces the force parameter ('Requires force=true') but provides no additional meaning for 'folder' or 'song' beyond their raw schema types and constraints. Given low schema coverage, it should compensate more but does not.

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 'Delete a song file' uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('song file'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like lc_create_song, lc_copy_song, and lc_read_song. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 phrase 'Requires force=true; there is no undo' provides important context about when deletion will actually occur and warns of irreversibility, but it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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