reschedule_chore_occurrence

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

No annotations present, so description carries the burden. It discloses that chore_id is resolved to UUID, date formats are YYYY-MM-DD, and that the backend currently returns 501 for chores (forward compatibility). This is transparent about current behavior and limitations.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a brief note. Front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant words, efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Has output schema (not shown), so return value explanation is not needed. The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and current limitation. Could mention success/error cases beyond 501, but overall sufficient given output schema and tool complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains chore_id accepts multiple reference forms (UUID, sequence shorthand, canonical ref, app URL) and is resolved to UUID. It clarifies that date and new_date are YYYY-MM-DD occurrence dates, adding essential meaning not in the schema.

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 'Move a single chore occurrence to new_date without touching the cadence', specifying the action, resource, and key differentiator. It distinguishes from siblings like set_chore_occurrence_status and mark_next_chore_done, and from other reschedule tools for events and habits.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and its scope (single occurrence, no cadence change), and notes that chore_id accepts multiple reference forms. It also provides a forward compatibility note, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance.

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