update_chore

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

With no annotations, the description covers multiple behavioral traits: chore_id accepts multiple reference forms, complete_by cannot be cleared, recurrence update rotates series ID, and v0.2 field behaviors. It lacks details on auth or rate limits but provides substantial transparency.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. It is not overly verbose, though some sections could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds 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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), the description covers parameter details and constraints well. It lacks mention of error handling or defaults but is quite complete for a patch tool with 6 parameters.

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 the description carries full burden. It explains chore_id formats, constraints on complete_by and recurrence, and v0.2 optional fields (cadence_mode, deadline_time_of_day, subtask_template). It does not detail title, description, or labels, but these are intuitive.

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 'Patch mutable fields on a chore,' clearly stating the verb (patch) and resource (chore). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_chore and delete_chore, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 that omitted fields stay untouched and provides specific field behaviors (e.g., complete_by cannot be cleared). It implies usage for updating chores, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. Still clear enough for most cases.

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