skylight_complete_chore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing further: no idempotency note (does completing an already-complete chore error?), no indication of what state results, and no distinction from completing a chore instance. With annotations carrying the safety signal, this thin addition merits a low score.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. For a mutation tool with two undocumented parameters and a near-identical sibling, this terseness leaves real gaps.

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 write operation with no output schema, no meaningful annotations beyond hints, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at minimum resolve the chore-vs-chore-instance distinction and explain frameId. It does none of this, so an agent cannot call it confidently in the presence of skylight_complete_chore_instance.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. It never clarifies whether 'id' is a chore definition ID or a specific chore instance ID, and 'frameId' is completely unexplained. The wording of 'Mark a chore complete' only marginally implies id is a chore, which is the bare minimum.

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 verb and resource ('Mark a chore complete'), so an agent knows the operation is a state transition on a chore. However, it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling skylight_complete_chore_instance, which is exactly the kind of ambiguity an agent needs resolved. Clear purpose, but no sibling disambiguation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as skylight_complete_chore_instance (for a specific occurrence) or skylight_uncomplete_chore (the inverse). The agent must infer routing entirely from tool names.

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