food_basket_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not state whether the deletion is reversible, whether it is actually a simulation, whether the confirm parameter gates real destruction, or what token auth is required. The "(dry-run)" hint gestures at safety but is too ambiguous to rely on.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. The single parenthetical is doing ambiguous work rather than clarifying.

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?

A three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and a four-word description leaves the agent with far too little to invoke it safely or correctly. Nothing about auth, confirmation flow, or failure modes is conveyed.

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% across three parameters (token, confirm, basket_id), so the description must compensate and largely does not — it never names any parameter. The "(dry-run)" mention weakly gestures at confirm semantics but adds no usable meaning for token or basket_id.

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 names a verb and resource ("Delete basket"), which is enough to distinguish it from food_basket_create and food_basket_update. However, the parenthetical "(dry-run)" muddies the purpose — an agent cannot tell whether this tool always simulates, or whether it deletes and dry-run is a mode. Purpose is identifiable but not precise.

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 on when to use this versus food_basket_update or food_basket_create, and no explanation of the relationship between the dry-run behavior and the confirm parameter. Usage is only implied by the tool name, which is the minimum possible signal.

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