vibo_delete_section

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that the deletion cascades to songs/answers/comments, is irreversible, refuses protected types, and requires user confirmation. These are behavioral traits the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action and irreversibility warning, then covers refusals and confirmation. It is dense and every sentence carries information, though the confirmation paragraph is long enough that it borders on verbose.

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 output schema, the description covers irreversibility, cascade scope, refusal conditions, and the full confirmation protocol, all matching the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 100%, so the schema documents all four params; baseline would be 3. The description goes further by restating force:true for protected types and explaining the confirmToken's two-phase semantics and the 'never reuse, never invent' constraint, adding cross-parameter context beyond the schema.

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 timeline section) and enumerates exactly what is destroyed (songs, answers, comments). It also names the protected section types (dontPlay, headline) that scope the operation, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like vibo_delete_song_comment or vibo_update_section.

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?

Explicitly says when the call is refused (dontPlay/headline unless force:true) and lays out the confirmation protocol step by step, including the confirmToken fallback and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference. It also points to vibo_list_sections as the source of sectionId.

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