Remove monitored playlist

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by spelling out exactly what is destroyed versus preserved: source-linked playlists are archived and disabled, legacy unlinked playlists and their discovery events are deleted, and saved captures remain. It also states the return signal (whether a row was affected), which 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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then destruction semantics, then return and preservation guarantees. Every sentence carries non-redundant information; nothing could be cut without losing decision-relevant content.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly describes the return value, the data-destruction profile, and the recovery implications for captures. For a single-parameter destructive tool, an agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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% and the parameter description already states the ID comes from add_monitored_playlist or list_monitored_playlists. The prose adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so this is the baseline 3 case where the schema does the work.

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 ("Stop monitoring a registered playlist") in the first sentence, clearly separating it from sibling add_monitored_playlist and poll_monitored_playlist. An agent knows exactly what domain object is affected without reading 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?

Explicitly says to use it after list_monitored_playlists identifies the target, and names the alternative set_source_consent with the distinguishing condition (stop capture while keeping metadata detection). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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