Delete a playbook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it records a cross-device delete to prevent reappearance on sync, and explains it is 'minor + re-creatable' so no confirmation is needed. This goes beyond the annotations and gives an agent insight into side effects. No contradiction.

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 succinct sentences: the first states the action and id source, the second explains cross-device behavior and the lack of confirmation. No extraneous words, and important details are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is fully adequate. It covers how to get the id, the side effect (cross-device delete), and why no confirmation is needed. Combined with annotations for destructive/idempotent hints, nothing essential 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?

The schema already fully describes the id parameter (type, required, description). The tool description repeats the instruction 'from list_playbooks', which adds a small hint about provenance but does not substantially augment the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a saved playbook by id'), specifies the resource (playbook), and tells the agent exactly where to get the id ('from list_playbooks'). It distinguishes this tool from other delete operations (e.g., delete_creator) by naming the resource type. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: you must first call list_playbooks to obtain the id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource specificity is high and the id source instruction is a clear prerequisite. A slight gap is absence of explicit comparison to sibling delete tools, but the resource target makes it obvious.

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