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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for going further with consequences annotations cannot express — irreversibility, recalculation of the recipe's nutrition, label and cost, and the fact that only the line (not the ingredient) is removed. It omits failure modes (invalid/historical ids) and whether an updated recipe payload is returned.

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?

Front-loads the WRITE (destructive) tag, then three short sentences each carrying a distinct fact (irreversibility, side effects, recovery path), ending with the underlying route. No sentence is redundant.

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-param mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, this is essentially self-sufficient: it discloses what is destroyed, what survives, what downstream data changes, and how to undo by re-adding. Only minor gaps remain — response shape and error behavior on a stale or already-removed line id.

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% and both required params are documented there, including the pointer that recipe_ingredient_id comes from recipal_list_recipe_ingredients. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('permanently remove one ingredient line from a recipe') and draws two sharp boundaries siblings don't: the ingredient itself is not deleted, and the line can be restored via recipal_add_recipe_ingredient. An agent can distinguish this from recipal_update_recipe_ingredient or recipal_create_ingredient 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?

Gives clear context for use (removing a whole line, with the explicit recovery path via recipal_add_recipe_ingredient) and clarifies the common confusion that it deletes the ingredient master record. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as 'use recipal_update_recipe_ingredient to change quantity instead of removing the line', so routing is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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