Rotate chores

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is carried by structured data. The description adds useful scope and ordering details, but it does not disclose audit-trail side effects, per-member policy behavior, or that dry_run=true suppresses writes—though the schema partially covers these.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, and 'Needs nothing' succinctly communicates the no-required-input expectation without repeating schema details.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: purpose is explicit and the schema covers parameter semantics. The main remaining gap is guidance on when to use it versus sibling assignment tools, which keeps it just above the minimum viable level.

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%, so the schema fully documents member, dry_run, and idempotency_key. The description's 'Needs nothing' usefully reinforces that no parameters are required, but it adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rotates'), names the exact resource ('every open, assigned chore'), and specifies the destination ('next member in the household order'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_chore or complete_chore by describing a bulk rotation rather than a single assignment or completion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over assign_chore or when a rotation is appropriate. 'Needs nothing' only signals that no prerequisites or required parameters exist; it does not explain the preview use case, member policy context, or any exclusions.

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