playlist_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description appropriately warns 'DESTRUCTIVE - Creates automatic backup,' disclosing the destructive nature and the backup behavior. It also mentions the need for force=true as a confirmation step. This goes beyond the schema and provides useful safety context, though it doesn't detail what the backup entails or the exact consequence of deletion.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose, then the critical warning, then the actionable instruction. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 deletion tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the destructive flag, the backup behavior, and the confirmation mechanism. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens after deletion (e.g., success message or error conditions), but it is largely sufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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, so the description must compensate. It explains 'force' as a confirmation flag, which adds meaning, and 'playlistName' is implicitly the target of deletion. However, it doesn't specify constraints like whether the name must exist or how the backup is managed, leaving some semantics to inference.

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 starts with 'Delete a playlist,' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like playlist_create, playlist_rename, and playlist_addTracks. The purpose is 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 instruction 'Set force=true to confirm' gives a clear condition for executing the deletion, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mutation_rollback for undo) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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