Delete a Saved Luau Playbook

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent) by disclosing exact return payloads for both hit and miss cases, the guarantee that running scripts loaded from the playbook are unaffected, and the approval/verification contract. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the metadata segments are short and scannable. Some trailing items — notably 'On failure: inspect tool-schema...' — read as template boilerplate rather than tool-specific value, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ ok, removed }) for both outcomes, plus approval requirements and post-conditions. For a one-parameter delete tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is already documented as 'Playbook name to delete.' The description restates the signature as { name: string } but adds no format, naming-convention, or resolution detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — 'Remove a persisted playbook from ~/.executor-mcp/playbooks/' — including the exact storage location. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like playbook-save, playbook-list, and playbook-run, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear operating context: it is a persisted-state mutation requiring explicit-mutation-approval and should be verified with assert-state. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g., playbook-list to confirm existence first) or states when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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