delete_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at orphaning behavior, but does not state deletion permanence, required permissions, effects on referenced entities, or error handling.

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 concise sentence (7 words) that front-loads the core purpose and includes optional behavior. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It is adequate but could include edge cases like what happens if the recipe is not found or if force is false and references exist.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema by mentioning historical plan references, which likely maps to the force parameter. However, the mapping is ambiguous, and since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 identifies the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'custom recipe', with the optional behavior of orphaning historical plan references. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_recipe or update_recipe.

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 mentions an optional behavior (orphaning references) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use the force parameter or when to avoid deletion. No alternatives are mentioned compared to sibling tools.

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