fjern_opskrift

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the confirmation requirement, which is real value beyond annotations, but it does not say whether the removal is permanent, what happens on a name mismatch, or whether the whole recipe or only a dish entry is removed.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive action front-loaded and the safety instruction second. Efficient and well ordered, though extremely terse — the brevity costs information rather than gaining clarity.

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 no output schema, the confirmation instruction plus the destructive annotation covers the essentials. Still missing are failure behavior (unknown name) and whether the deletion is reversible, which matter for a remove operation.

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% for the single required parameter 'navn', so the description must carry the burden. It implies the name refers to a dish in the collection, but gives no guidance on exact matching, case sensitivity, or whether ambiguity is possible — the meaning of the input remains largely inferred.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fjern en ret fra opskriftssamlingen'), so the agent knows this deletes an item from the recipe collection and can distinguish it from gem_opskrift. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Spørg brugeren først' gives one concrete procedural condition — confirm with the user before invoking — which is genuinely useful for a destructive tool. It does not address when to use this versus editing or overwriting an existing recipe, nor what to do if the dish does not exist.

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