bar_delete_ingredient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description says nothing about permission requirements, reversibility, or the effect on related data (cocktails/shelf references). Minimal behavioral context for a destructive tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and selector front-loaded. No waste, though it is arguably too terse for a destructive operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the tool is simple (one param). However, for a destructive mutation with no annotations, the absence of any caveats about irreversibility or permissions leaves a meaningful gap.

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% for the single 'id' parameter. The description adds value by revealing the param accepts either an ID or a slug, which the schema (typed only as an unlabeled string) does not convey. This partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (delete) + resource (ingredient), and the 'by ID or slug' phrasing clarifies the target selector. It is distinguishable from siblings like bar_update_ingredient or bar_get_ingredient, though it doesn't explicitly name the destructive counterpart relationship. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., bar_update_ingredient, bar_remove_from_shelf). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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