mealie_delete_recipe_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the destructive nature ('Delete') and the requirement for explicit confirmation, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose irreversibility, permission needs, or what happens if confirmation is false. The description adds some transparency but could be richer for 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the core action and the confirmation gate, but lacks details on parameter semantics and the behavioral rules for the confirmation flag (e.g., what happens if false). No return-value explanation is needed because an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the confirmation parameter ('after explicit confirmation') but does not name confirmed_by_user or explain that slug_or_id is the recipe identifier. The schema itself provides only types and required status, leaving the meaning of parameters underspecified. This is a clear gap.

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 the action (Delete), the resource (recipe cover image), and a key condition (after explicit confirmation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mealie_update_recipe_image and mealie_upload_recipe_asset, which perform different operations on the same resource.

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 provides clear context: this is for deleting a recipe cover image, and it must be explicitly confirmed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the purpose is scoped enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool versus update/upload. No direct reference to sibling tools is given, so it misses the top score for explicit guidance.

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