Preview playlist deletion

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds genuine context with 'permanently' (the ultimate effect being previewed) and 'owned' (an ownership/permission requirement), but omits the two-phase preview/commit behavior that is the key trait of this tool family. It does not contradict the annotations, since a preview of a deletion is itself non-destructive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is tight, though arguably too terse for a mutation-preview tool that would benefit from one clause about the commit step.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the missing preview-to-commit workflow explanation, which is the most important thing an agent needs to call this tool correctly rather than assuming it performs the deletion.

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 does not explain the playlist_id parameter, where to obtain it, or its format. The word 'owned' hints that the ID must reference a playlist the caller owns, which is the only meaning added beyond the raw schema, so it falls short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (Preview), resource (deleting a playlist), and scope (one, owned), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like tidal_preview_delete_folder or tidal_commit_action. It stops short of naming the commit sibling, but the preview/commit naming convention makes the distinction clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'Preview' suggests this should precede an actual deletion, but the description never states that this tool does not delete anything itself or that the result must be passed to tidal_commit_action. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.

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