Delete a meal recipe from Skylight Calendar by providing its ID to remove outdated or unwanted dishes from your meal plan.
Delete a meal recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only repeats 'delete', which is already implied by the destructiveHint annotation. It adds no extra behavioral context such as permanence, cascading effects, or required permissions. Since annotations already carry the destructive signal, the description contributes nothing beyond it.
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, lean sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. There is nothing extraneous.
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?
The tool has two parameters, one undocumented, and no output schema. The description does not explain the parameters, the difference from skylight_delete_meal, or any side effects of deletion. For a simple delete operation, this is still incomplete because the agent lacks information to construct a correct call.
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%, and the description gives no explanation of the 'id' or 'frameId' parameters. The agent cannot infer what these identifiers refer to or how they affect the deletion. The description fails entirely to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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) and the resource (meal recipe), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like skylight_delete_meal that target a different entity. The verb and resource are unambiguous, and the name reinforces the purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for choosing it over skylight_delete_meal or other deletion tools, or any exclusions. The agent receives no directional help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.