set_chore_occurrence_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: the chore_id resolution (UUID, sequence shorthand, canonical ref, URL), status aliases, and the server-side resolution of 'Done' to DoneOnTime or DoneLate. It does not mention authorization requirements or side effects like notifications, but it covers the core mutation behavior adequately.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured details for each parameter. While slightly verbose with the note and formatting, every sentence provides necessary information without waste.

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 no annotations and an existing output schema (not shown), the description does not explain return values or potential errors. It also omits preconditions like requiring an existing chore occurrence. For a mutation tool, additional context on side effects or idempotency would improve completeness, but the core behavior is clear enough.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: explains chore_id accepts multiple reference forms, status is one of three values with legacy alias, and date is YYYY-MM-DD format. Every parameter is fully documented.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Set the status of a single chore occurrence.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_next_chore_done' (which marks the next due occurrence) and 'reschedule_chore_occurrence' (which changes the date).

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 lists valid status values and notes the alias for 'dropped', guiding correct usage. It explains that 'Done' resolves server-side based on 'complete_by'. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context from sibling tools provides implicit guidance.

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