recipes_foods_delete_one

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not state that deletion is permanent, whether the food is removed from existing recipes, whether it is referential-integrity blocked, or what the response is. Only the destructive implication of 'Delete' is conveyed.

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 useful content ('Delete food' plus the endpoint) is front-loaded, but roughly two-thirds of the text is a keyword dump (delete, remove, destroy, write, mealie, etc.) that adds no semantic value.

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 destructive endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition leaves critical gaps: reversibility, side effects on recipes, auth requirements, and response shape are all unspecified.

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 must compensate for the single item_id parameter, and it does not — it never says the id is a food UUID or where to obtain one. The only signal is the format uuid4 in the schema itself.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete food', DELETE /api/foods/{item_id}), which clearly separates it from read/create/merge/update siblings like recipes_foods_get_one or recipes_foods_merge_one. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus recipes_foods_merge_one (for deduplication) or recipes_foods_update_one, and no mention of prerequisites such as ownership/permissions. An agent gets no context beyond the HTTP verb.

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