delete_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden, and it does add one genuinely useful trait: the deletion cascades to playlist clips. However it says nothing about irreversibility, undo availability, required permissions, or what happens if the id is invalid or the pattern is in use by clips.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive scope appears immediately after the verb.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: no irreversibility/recovery note, no guidance on obtaining the id, and no failure behavior. The cascade note helps but doesn't cover what an agent needs to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates minimally by clarifying that `pattern` is an id rather than a name — meaningful for a bare integer field. It still doesn't say where valid ids come from or what an invalid id does.

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 and resource (delete pattern) and adds the cascade scope ('and its playlist clips'), so an agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_clip or delete_channel, but the resource noun is distinct enough to disambiguate.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., delete_clip for playlist clips, or undo for reversal), no preconditions, no warning that the pattern id must first be obtained from project state. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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