youtube_delete_playlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key trait that the operation is destructive, which is genuinely useful, but it omits whether deletion is permanent, what happens to the playlist's videos, and whether authorization is required.

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 short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded after the action statement; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should cover reversibility, permissions, and ID semantics. It only flags destructiveness, leaving the agent without the context needed to invoke it safely.

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% and the single playlist_id parameter is documented only as a non-empty string. The description adds no format, source, or acquisition guidance (e.g., where to get the ID, whether it accepts a URL or bare ID), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (delete) and resource (editable playlist), which distinguishes it from siblings like youtube_list_playlists, youtube_rename_playlist, and youtube_remove_videos. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify what an 'editable' playlist means relative to the other playlist 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., youtube_remove_videos for clearing contents), nor any prerequisites such as authentication or ownership requirements. The word 'editable' faintly implies a constraint but never explains it.

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