mark_next_chore_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains ID resolution, status values including alias, and the behavior of 'Done' resolving to DoneOnTime/DoneLate. It also mentions the 404 error case. Some side effects (e.g., updating any other data) are not mentioned but likely minimal.

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 description is concise with several sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, one required, output schema exists), the description covers behavior, parameter details, and an error case. It does not describe the output format, but the presence of an output schema lessens that need.

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 has 0% coverage, so description compensates fully. It explains chore_id accepts multiple reference forms and resolves to UUID, and enumerates valid status values including aliases. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 clearly states it applies a status to the earliest unresolved occurrence of a chore, using specific verbs and distinguishing from siblings like set_chore_occurrence_status that require a specific occurrence.

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?

Explicitly mentions it's useful for the common case of not wanting to look up which date is overdue, and notes a 404 if no unresolved occurrence exists. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly name alternative tools like set_chore_occurrence_status.

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