delete_recipeRemove a user-created recipe by its recipe ID, so you can delete recipes you added while leaving Picnic's own recipes unchanged.
Delete a recipe the user created with create_recipe. Only for user-created recipes, never Picnic's own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe_id | Yes | Id returned by create_recipe |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the genuinely new scope constraint (user-created only) and names the creating tool as the id source, but says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to a recipe already in a cart.
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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the constraint. Zero filler and nothing an agent must read past.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers action, eligibility, and id provenance. Only permanence/failure behavior is unstated, and destructiveness is at least implied by the annotations.
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 100% and the single parameter's description already states "Id returned by create_recipe". The description's "created with create_recipe" reinforces rather than extends this, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work.
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?
Specific verb+resource ("Delete a recipe") with an explicit scope tie-back to create_recipe, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_recipe and search_recipes. An agent knows immediately what is removed and which recipes the tool covers.
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?
"Only for user-created recipes, never Picnic's own" is a clear when-not condition, which is the main routing question for a delete tool. It doesn't name an alternative for non-user recipes (there is none in the sibling list), so the missing piece is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.