delete_playbookDelete a saved playbook by its ID and sync the removal across devices so it won't reappear. Quickly remove re-creatable playbooks without confirmation.
Delete a saved playbook by id (from list_playbooks). Records a cross-device delete so it does not come back on the next sync. Minor + re-creatable, so no confirm needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the playbook id (from list_playbooks) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.161Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses a non-obvious trait: 'Records a cross-device delete so it does not come back on the next sync,' which an agent could not infer from structured data. The 'Minor + re-creatable' note adds severity context that helps the agent set confirmation expectations. No contradiction with the annotations.
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?
Three short sentences: the core action is front-loaded, followed by the sync behavior and the severity rationale. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with a fully documented schema and a complete annotation set (destructive, idempotent, read-only), the description covers action, id source, persistence behavior, and severity. Return-value details are reasonably unnecessary given no output schema and the simple action.
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 100%; the schema already documents id as 'the playbook id (from list_playbooks)'. The description repeats the same provenance rather than adding new parameter details, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('saved playbook'), and the source of the identifier ('from list_playbooks'). This clearly differentiates delete_playbook from its delete_* siblings such as delete_brand, delete_drive_file, and delete_skill.
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 gives clear operational context: the id must come from list_playbooks, pointing the agent at the prerequisite call. It also justifies invocation without extra safeguards ('Minor + re-creatable, so no confirm needed'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.