delete_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Delete' but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether confirmation is required, whether dependencies are affected, or what the output/return value is. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is minimal and directly relevant. It earns its place, though the example could be slightly more illustrative.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't mention whether deletion is reversible, what happens to dependent workflows, or how to list available recipes. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what the tool returns on success or failure. An agent would need to infer too much.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add a concrete example ('old_workflow') and clarifies that 'name' is the recipe name to delete. However, it doesn't explain constraints like uniqueness, case sensitivity, or how to find valid names. The single parameter is simple, so the example provides adequate baseline meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a workflow recipe.' This clearly identifies the action and object. It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_glyph and delete_kerning_pair by the 'recipe' resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the recipe must exist, or any conditions for deletion. It also doesn't reference related tools like list_recipes or get_recipe for discovering valid names.

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