Remove a recipe from a shopping list

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (which just say not read-only and not destructive) by explaining the nuanced behavior: items shared with other recipes remain, with reduced quantity. This adds valuable behavioral detail.

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 just two sentences, each doing useful work: the first states the core action, the second clarifies the non-trivial side-effect. 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description explains the core behavior and a key side-effect. It does not explicitly state return values or error conditions (e.g., what happens if recipe not on list), but the behavioral nuance provided makes it mostly complete for a removal operation.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (list_id, recipe, servings_multiplier), so the description need not add param details. The description provides no extra parameter guidance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('removes...back off') and resource ('recipe's ingredients from a shopping list'), and clearly distinguishes from its sibling tool add_recipe_to_shopping_list by describing the inverse operation.

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 when to use this tool: to reverse a recipe addition. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of removing items makes the use case fairly clear.

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