Delete cookbook

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that recipes are not touched, which is a key behavioral detail not in annotations. It also discloses the confirmation token workflow. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences: first states action and side-effect, second describes the confirmation workflow. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 description covers the core deletion behavior and confirmation mechanism. It does not mention error handling or return values, but for a relatively simple destructive tool with no output schema, this is adequate. The schema covers parameter validation, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the overall confirmation flow, which gives context for how to use the confirm_token parameter. It does not add details beyond schema for cookbook_id, but the workflow context is helpful.

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 it deletes a cookbook and clarifies that recipes are unaffected because a cookbook is only a saved filter. This distinguishes it from other delete tools (e.g., delete_recipe) and from non-deletion cookbook tools.

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 explicitly explains the two-step confirmation process: call once to get a token, then again with that token. This provides clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently self-contained.

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