remove_recipe_ingredients_from_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers almost nothing behavioral. The phrase 'Delete recipe' is genuinely ambiguous — it could be read as deleting the recipe entity rather than detaching its ingredients from a shopping list — and nothing is said about reversibility, permissions, or what recipeDecrementQuantity does to quantities.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but it is followed by a long keyword-stuffing tail that repeats the tool name five ways, lists unrelated verbs, and ends with 'post, mealie.' That bulk adds no selection value and crowds out the missing behavioral detail.

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 mutating, three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies no required-parameter emphasis, no quantity semantics, and no side-effect disclosure. It is inadequate 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 0% across three parameters. The endpoint template exposes the positional meaning of item_id and recipe_id, which is the only param information available, but the non-obvious recipeDecrementQuantity (default 1) is never explained anywhere in the description or schema.

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 opening line states a concrete verb and resource (remove recipe ingredients from a shopping list) and scopes it to Households: Shopping Lists. However, the trailing keyword block immediately contradicts that purpose by also advertising 'create recipe, add recipe, new recipe, make recipe, write recipe', which muddies what the tool actually does.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The sibling add_recipe_ingredients_to_list / add_single_recipe_ingredients_to_list are the obvious alternatives, yet the description never names them or states the condition that selects removal instead of addition.

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