Recipe Remove Ingredient Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that it removes an ingredient, implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, if any confirmation is required, or what the effect on the recipe is. It does provide a helpful pointer to recipe_details_tool, but leaves out important behavioral details for a deletion-like 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?

The description is brief and to the point, with two sentences that both carry value: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a key usage hint. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but for a single-parameter tool with no annotations, the guidance to use recipe_details_tool is useful. However, it lacks details on any side effects, permissions, or error conditions, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description says to use recipe_details_tool to see ingredient position IDs, which adds context to the 'position_id' parameter beyond the schema's simple 'the recipe ingredient position ID to remove'. However, schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and while the description adds practical guidance, it doesn't elaborate on the parameter's format or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states that the tool removes an ingredient from a recipe, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'recipe_add_ingredient_tool' and 'recipe_update_tool' by focusing on removal, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description implicitly suggests a workflow by telling users to use recipe_details_tool to see position IDs, which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any prerequisites beyond obtaining the position ID, leaving some guidance to inference.

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