Delete a playlist

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the playlist's videos survive the deletion, and user approval is required. It stops short of saying whether the playlist itself is recoverable or what the response contains.

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 short sentences with no waste. The destructive effect is stated first and the important non-obvious caveat (videos preserved) and precondition follow immediately.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present: what is destroyed, what is not, and that user approval is required. Only minor items are missing, such as what the tool returns and whether the deletion is reversible.

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%, so channel, playlist and confirmation_token are already documented in the schema, including the rule that the token must come from a prior call with identical arguments. The description adds only the general confirmation expectation, no format or matching guidance beyond the schema. 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) and resource (playlist), and immediately clarifies the collateral-effect boundary: the videos inside are not deleted. That distinguishes it from delete_video and remove_from_playlist well enough, though it never names a sibling or states what a playlist deletion affects channel-wide.

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?

"Needs the user's confirmation" gives an explicit precondition for invocation, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use rule an agent needs for a destructive operation. It does not spell out the two-step flow (first call returns confirmation_token, second call with identical arguments) or say when a caller should prefer remove_from_playlist instead.

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