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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing permanence, the exact cascade (cover and public page removed), what survives (generations made with the recipe are kept), and the ownership precondition. These are precisely the facts an agent needs before firing an irreversible mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the cascade, then the exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 no explanation. For a single-parameter destructive tool the description covers action, cascade, preservation, ownership, and the blocked case, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the description technically must compensate and does not mention recipe_id at all. Mitigating factor: the single parameter is a self-evident uuid identifier whose name and format fully convey its meaning, so no real ambiguity remains.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (recipe you own) plus the cascade scope (cover and public page). It also carves out an exception case (curated rows) and clarifies side effects, so an agent can distinguish this from delete_folder, delete_generation, delete_storyboard without opening any 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?

Provides an implied when-not condition ('A curated row cannot be deleted here'), which is useful routing information. However, it names no alternative tool or path for the curated case, and gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus update_recipe or archive-style siblings, leaving usage largely inferred.

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