cyberchef_recipe_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this operation mutates and can be repeated. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as whether deletion is permanent, whether related data is affected, or whether authorization is required. Because the annotation already carries the core safety signal, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 one short sentence that states the operation and parameter without waste. It is front-loaded and easily scanned. It could earn a 5 only by adding a bit more practical context, but for its brevity it is efficiently structured.

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 that there is no output schema and this is a destructive operation, the description could usefully mention what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or deleted recipe) or any non-obvious behavior such as idempotent deletion of an already-missing recipe. The annotations cover the destructive and idempotent nature partially, but the description itself is minimal. It is adequate for a simple one-parameter delete but leaves room for more complete context.

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 input schema covers the single parameter (id) with a format and pattern, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only says 'by ID' and does not add anything concrete about the semantics of id beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a recipe by ID' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and names the resource ('recipe') and the identifying parameter ('ID'). It is clear at a glance which operation is performed and on what entity, and the presence of sibling tools like cyberchef_recipe_get, cyberchef_recipe_create, and cyberchef_recipe_update makes this description sufficiently distinct as the deletion counterpart.

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 implies use when a recipe should be removed by its UUID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any restrictions or side effects such as whether the deletion is permanent or cascades. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent is left to infer the usage context from the verb and resource.

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