households_recipe_actions_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 what the endpoint is; it does not state authentication requirements, whether the action affects household members, side effects, or what a successful creation returns.

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 purpose sentence and endpoint are front-loaded, which is good, but they are followed by a long keyword block that adds no value and bloats the definition. Most of the text is repetitive SEO-style filler rather than useful specification.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested required body object, the description is far from complete. It omits required body field semantics, authentication expectations, side effects, and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer almost everything from the schema and endpoint alone.

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, but it says nothing about the required body fields (actionType, title, url) or the meaning of the link/post enum. The schema itself defines the nested body shape, but the description adds no parameter semantics beyond repeating 'recipe action'.

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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('recipe action') and includes the HTTP endpoint POST /api/households/recipe-actions. It distinguishes the tool from sibling read/update/delete recipe-action tools by verb, though the keyword spam adds no further 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as households_recipe_actions_update_one or trigger_action. The keyword list is not usage guidance; it repeats the name and synonyms rather than stating conditions or prerequisites.

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