Delete a saved recipe by name to clean up your recipe library. It matches names case-insensitively and returns a confirmation or a not found message.
Remove a recipe by name. USE WHEN: cleaning up the recipe library. Case-insensitive name matching. Returns confirmation or 'not found' message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Recipe name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: case-insensitive name matching and the return shape ("confirmation or 'not found' message"). It does not cover permissions or multi-match handling, so not a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then usage, then behavioral details. No filler text and every sentence adds information.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, matching semantics and the return message, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around permissions and behavior on ambiguous/multiple matches.
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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema carries the baseline. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by specifying that name matching is case-insensitive, which directly affects how the agent supplies the value.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a recipe by name"), which clearly separates it from add_recipe and get_recipes in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
"USE WHEN: cleaning up the recipe library" gives a concrete usage context. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool named (e.g., what to use to inspect before removing), so it is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.