create_random_meal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuine behavior beyond the name: selection is governed by household mealplan rules and degrades to an arbitrary meal when no rules exist. It does not say that this writes a new entry into the mealplan, what a non-random repeated call would do, or whether permissions are required, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation route.

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 useful content is two sentences; the rest is a long keyword dump ('Keywords: create_random_meal, create random meal, create random, add random ... mealie') that repeats the tool name and synonyms without adding semantics. Space that could document the input parameter is spent on SEO filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover what is created and returned, plus permission requirements. Instead it explains only the randomization rule source; the actual artifact created (a dated mealplan entry of a randomly chosen recipe) and the response shape are unstated, and the sole parameter is undocumented.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the single required 'body' parameter — it never mentions 'date' (the sole required field) or 'entryType' (which defaults to 'dinner'). An agent must open the schema to learn anything about inputs, and even then the enum values for entryType carry no explanation.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it creates a randomly-selected mealplan entry under a household, via POST /api/households/mealplans/random. That distinguishes it reasonably well from the sibling households_mealplans_create_one (manual entry creation), though the sibling is never named. The scattered keyword block dilutes but does not obscure the core statement.

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?

It explains the operating context (randomization follows the household's mealplan settings, falling back to any random meal if none exist) and points to the mealplan settings routes. However, it never states when to prefer this over households_mealplans_create_one, nor any prerequisites or side effects, so usage is only implied.

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