Chore Undo Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that this is a destructive action ('Removes the last recorded execution') and describes the secondary effect ('reverts the schedule'). This is more transparent than typical mutation-tool descriptions, though it does not detail edge cases like undoing when no execution exists.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the concrete behavioral detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation and its effect sufficiently. It lacks only explicit edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if there is no prior execution), but this is not critical for the common invocation path.

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 100%, and the single parameter is already well documented with an example and accepted forms ('Chore name ... or numeric chore ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Undo the most recent execution of a chore.' It then clarifies the effect ('Removes the last recorded execution and reverts the schedule'), which clearly distinguishes this from chore_execute_tool, chore_create_tool, task_undo_tool, and battery_undo_cycle_tool.

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 makes the intended context clear: it is for reverting the latest chore execution, not for general chore management. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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