willys_plan_remove_ingredient

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: only one ingredient is removed and the recipe's other rows remain unchanged. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the ingredient is not found, which are relevant for a destructive operation.

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 that front-loads the action ('Ta bort') and includes a clarifying example without extraneous words. It is well-structured and immediately readable.

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover the full context. It explains the core action and its scoping but leaves gaps regarding the 'plan' parameter, the return value or success indication, and error behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but not 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 description coverage is 67%: 'plan' and 'query' have descriptions, but 'recipe' has none. The tool description does not clarify the format or role of the 'recipe' parameter, nor does it connect 'recipe' and 'plan' contextually. It adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Ta bort' = remove) and clearly identifies the resource ('ingrediens ur ett recept' = ingredient from a recipe). It scopes the action to exactly one ingredient and explicitly states that other rows are untouched, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like willys_plan_remove_recipe (removes entire recipe) and willys_plan_set_ingredient (modifies ingredients).

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 provides a contextual example ('t.ex. en skafferivara användaren redan har hemma' = e.g. a pantry item the user already has at home), implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it; the differentiation from sibling tools is implicit rather than explicit.

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