Remove a playlist entry permanently by its item_id, including its schedule. Pause visibility instead to keep the entry. Verify the entry after removal.
Remove a playlist entry by its item_id. This loses that entry and its schedule; use set_playlist_item_visibility to pause it instead. Read the entry before removal and verify afterward.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds concrete behavioral context: that removal loses the entry and its schedule, and recommends verification steps. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it does not contradict them.
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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, noting the consequence and alternative, and prescribing verification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or vague wording.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, side effects, alternative behavior, and recommended usage steps. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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 input schema provides no description for item_id (schema description coverage is 0%), and the description merely repeats 'item_id' without explaining its meaning, format, or relationship to playlist items. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, offering no additional semantic value.
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 states a specific action ('Remove a playlist entry') and the resource key ('by its item_id'), and clearly differentiates from the sibling tool set_playlist_item_visibility. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what it is not for.
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 directs the agent to use set_playlist_item_visibility for pausing instead of permanent removal, establishing a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use contrast. It also advises reading the entry before removal and verifying afterward, providing actionable usage steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.