Delete a private recipe

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further: it discloses that the ownership check reads the recipe before mutation, that deletion is a soft delete (recipe stays marked deleted and drops out of foods and searches), and that a repeat call returns data.ok true with already_deleted true. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and id source, then the refusal rule, then the delete semantics. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema 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, yet the description still surfaces the most decision-relevant output field (already_deleted). For a single-parameter destructive tool, preconditions, side effects, and idempotency are all covered.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining provenance of the id value – it must come from create_recipe or a get_my_foods RECIPE hit's food_id – which the schema does not say.

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 (delete a private recipe) and immediately scopes it to the user's own recipes, which separates it from create_recipe, update_recipe, and delete_food. It even names where valid ids originate (create_recipe's recipe_id, get_my_foods RECIPE hits).

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 explicit when-not conditions: catalog, shared, and other users' recipes are refused before any change. However, it never routes the agent to a sibling for those refused cases (e.g., delete_food or preview_removal), so alternative selection is only partially covered.

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