delete_playlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., removing associated media), or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete an existing playlist'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what happens on deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), return values, or safety considerations. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to be adequately complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'playlist_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a playlist ID is needed, which is already covered. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('an existing playlist'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_playlist' and 'list_playlists' by specifying deletion rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't specify what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal vs. soft delete), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing playlist ID), exclusions (e.g., not for playlists in use), or related tools like 'create_playlist' or 'list_playlists' for context. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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