google_youtube_remove_from_playlistRemove a video from a YouTube playlist by playlist item ID. Provide the item ID and optional account nickname to delete that playlist entry.
Remove a video from a playlist by playlist item ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| playlistItemId | Yes | Playlist item ID to remove. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that the operation targets a playlist item ID, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the video itself is deleted or merely unlinked, permission/auth requirements, or what happens on an invalid ID.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource and identifier front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is on the terse side, but terse is not verbose, and the core action reads clearly.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotation coverage it should disclose more about the mutating effect (reversibility, side effects) to fully support correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (account, playlistItemId) are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'by playlist item ID' reinforces which ID is expected but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured data. 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?
Specific verb (remove) plus resource (video from playlist) and the key identifier mechanism (by playlist item ID). It is inherently distinguishable from siblings like add_to_playlist and delete_playlist, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools such as add_to_playlist or delete_playlist. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.