Soft-delete a recipe. Meal plan entries linked to it become custom entries holding a snapshot of its name, ingredients and instructions, so none are left with a dangling link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Recipe id from list_recipes. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID of the recipe to delete (from list_recipes)"New value: +"Recipe id from list_recipes."Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "8f14e45f-ceea-467e-8a2f-1a2b3c4d5e6f"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID of the recipe to delete (from list_recipes)"Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "8f14e45f-ceea-467e-8a2f-1a2b3c4d5e6f"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining the soft-delete behavior and the snapshot mechanism for linked meal plan entries. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations, clarifying the exact consequence of the operation.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence explains an important consequence without redundancy.
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 tool with an output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: what happens to the recipe, what happens to linked meal plan entries, and the guarantee against dangling links. Nothing essential 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 has 100% description coverage, with the only parameter 'id' documented as 'Recipe id from list_recipes.' The description adds no additional parameter details, but the schema is already sufficient, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a recipe.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_recipe, update_recipe, and list_recipes by specifying the deletion action and its soft-delete nature.
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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when a recipe should be removed but meal plan entries should remain intact as snapshots. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is unambiguous given the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.