delete_playlist

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context beyond that: the operation is 'НЕОБРАТИМО' (irreversible) and requires explicit user confirmation. These two facts are not encoded in the annotations and materially improve safe invocation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible nature and the user-confirmation requirement. Every clause adds distinct operational value.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, with both parameters required and 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify 'kind' and the exact matching semantics of 'confirm_title'. The safety guidance is complete but parameter guidance is not.

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 0% and the description only explains 'confirm_title' as a protection mechanism. The 'kind' parameter is left unexplained, forcing the agent to infer its meaning. The description partially compensates but leaves a required parameter opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('удаляет') and resource ('мой плейлист целиком') with irreversible scope ('НЕОБРАТИМО'). No sibling is similarly named, so the destructive intent is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly requires asking the user before invocation, which is clear precondition guidance. Does not reference alternative tools like create_playlist or list_my_playlists, but for a destructive operation the primary guidance is sufficient.

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