Delete playlist item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the operation is irreversible, that remaining items stay in order, that sort_order gaps are normalized server-side, and that the underlying asset is not deleted. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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 is concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, followed by short labeled sections. Every line earns its place, and the formatting makes it scannable and easy to parse.

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 2-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, irreversibility, side effects (ordering/normalization), and scope (asset not deleted). This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two UUID parameters. While the names are self-explanatory, the description adds crucial semantic context by clarifying that item_id refers to the playlist item, not the underlying asset. It does not explicitly map each parameter, but it communicates the key distinction that prevents misuse.

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 opening line 'Remove an item from a playlist' is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from the sibling delete_playlist (which removes an entire playlist). The additional note that the asset itself is NOT deleted further disambiguates the tool's scope.

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 provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, with a named alternative (update_playlist_item with is_selected: false). This leaves no doubt about when to invoke this tool versus a sibling.

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