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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the recipe is only unlinked from one cookbook and remains in the library and other cookbooks. It does not say whether the link can be restored or what error occurs if the recipe is not in that cookbook.

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?

Two short sentences: the trigger first, the scope clarification second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, non-open-world tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, only the semantic effect of the removal needed explaining, and that is done. Missing only edge-case behavior such as no-op when the recipe is not in the cookbook.

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 100%, with both recipeId and cookbookId documented in the schema (including the hint to get cookbookId from list_cookbooks). The description adds no constraint or format detail beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('a recipe taken out of one of their cookbooks') and immediately scopes it against the destructive alternative by noting 'The recipe stays in the library and in any other cookbooks.' This lets an agent separate it from delete_recipe without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user wants a recipe taken out of one of their cookbooks'), so the when-to-use case is unambiguous. It falls short of naming the sibling to use instead for permanent deletion, but the scope sentence implies it.

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