Assign chore

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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries some burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the dual assign/unassign behavior and the null special case, but it does not mention side effects like policy checks, approval flow, or whether unassignment has destructive consequences.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately after.

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?

With a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. It covers the core operation and the one non-obvious rule (null-to-unassign), though it could add more context about policy constraints or when to use alternative chore tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains chore, assign_to, member, dry_run, and idempotency_key. The description paraphrases the assign_to null semantics but adds no meaning beyond 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 states a specific action, 'Assigns a chore to a member, or unassigns it,' and names the resource and recipient. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_chore, complete_chore, and rotate_chores.

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 gives clear context: it requires a chore and a member, with null meaning unassignment. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as complete_chore or rotate_chores, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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