trigger_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say what the trigger does (side effects, state changes, created artifacts), whether authorization/permissions are required, or whether the action is idempotent or repeatable. The HTTP verb POST and path are the only behavioral clues, leaving a mutation tool largely opaque.

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 opening line is reasonably front-loaded, but the description is dominated by a long, redundant keyword dump ('create recipe action, add recipe action, new recipe action...') that repeats near-identical phrases and the tool name. Most of the text does not earn its place or add instructional value.

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, 3 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the operation's effect and return behavior, but it does neither. An agent cannot tell what triggering returns or what permissions are needed, so the definition is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 should compensate, but it only implicitly exposes item_id and recipe_slug through the URL template. The body field recipe_scale (with default 1) is never mentioned, so the meaning and effect of scaling are entirely undocumented. This is a substantial gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 verb+resource ('Trigger recipe action') and includes the concrete HTTP endpoint POST /api/households/recipe-actions/{item_id}/trigger/{recipe_slug}, which pins down the resource. However, 'trigger a recipe action' largely restates the tool name trigger_action, and it never explains what triggering actually accomplishes (e.g., what effect it has on the household/recipe). It is adequate but vague on the actual semantics.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not distinguish this from siblings like households_recipe_actions_create_one or households_recipe_actions_update_one, nor does it say when a trigger is the right call versus creating/updating an action. Only the endpoint path hints at the scenario.

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