households_cookbooks_create_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers almost nothing: it does not state that this is a mutating write, whether it requires authentication or household membership, what happens on duplicate names/slugs, or what the response contains. The bare '[POST /api/households/cookbooks]' line is the only behavioral hint.

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 functional core is two short sentences and is front-loaded, which is good, but it is followed by a long comma-separated keyword block ('...mealie.') that adds no decision-relevant information and inflates the definition.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition is the only source of behavioral and parameter information, and it is nearly silent on both. For a mutation tool taking a nested body object, this leaves the agent under-informed about required fields and side effects.

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, and it does not: the body object's fields (name, slug, public, position, description, queryFilterString) are never mentioned, nor are which are required or what defaults apply. Only field names exist in the schema, which is not real semantics.

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 ('Create cookbook') and the HTTP endpoint reinforces it, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like households_cookbooks_get_one, update_one, and delete_one. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or note the required precondition (a household context).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as households_cookbooks_update_one or create_many, nor any stated prerequisites. The reader must infer that this is the single-item creation path purely from the name and the 'create cookbook' phrase.

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