delete_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that deletion is permanent, with no undo and no trash, which is essential for an agent deciding whether to invoke a destructive 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?

Two short sentences deliver the action and the critical warning with no wasted words. The permanence warning is front-loaded right after the verb phrase.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the key safety-relevant behavior: permanent deletion with no recovery. It could add expected error cases or prerequisites, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 schema provides only the property name 'path' with type string and 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that the path refers to a recipe file, adding some meaning, but it does not explain path format, relative vs absolute paths, or accepted file extensions.

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 states a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('recipe file'), and the permanence of the operation. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like write_recipe and read_recipe by naming the destructive action directly.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you want to permanently remove a recipe file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some room for inference.

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