households_mealplan_rules_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. It only says 'Create rule.' It does not state auth/permission requirements, whether the rule is immediately active, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 core sentence ('Create One — Households: Mealplan Rules. Create rule.') is concise but is followed by a long, redundant keyword list of near-synonyms and the endpoint path. The keyword dump is filler that does not earn its place and buries the small amount of real 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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits behavior, parameter semantics, and usage context. The endpoint path and keyword list are the only additions, and they do not fill the gaps.

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 there is one required body parameter containing day, entryType, and queryFilterString. The description says nothing about these fields, their meaning, enum values, defaults, or the query filter syntax. The schema structure partially documents the fields but the description fails to compensate 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Create rule' for 'Mealplan Rules'), which is clear enough. However, the rest of the text is a keyword dump of near-synonyms ('add rule, new rule, make rule, write rule') that adds no distinguishing meaning. It does not differentiate from the sibling update_one or the broader households_mealplans_create_one.

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 is present. The keyword list mentions 'post' and 'create' but never states when creating a mealplan rule is appropriate versus updating one or creating a mealplan directly. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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