delete_cookbookDelete a cookbook by name. No recipe is lost: any recipe that was only in this cookbook moves to the default cookbook. The default cookbook cannot be deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cookbook | Yes | name of the cookbook to delete; its recipes are kept and any that were in no other cookbook move to the default one |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes | ||
| moved_to_default | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description explains the actual consequence: no recipe is lost, and recipes only in that cookbook move to the default. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the key safety behavior and the main restriction. Every sentence carries useful information.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the key restriction. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 the input schema already documents the single cookbook parameter in detail. The description adds only "by name," so it meets the baseline without adding substantial parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Delete a cookbook by name." This clearly distinguishes it from create_cookbook and update_cookbook without requiring schema inspection.
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?
It gives a clear usage condition and an explicit exclusion: the default cookbook cannot be deleted. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the delete operation is unambiguous.
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.