skylight_complete_chore_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation action and does not mention validation failures, idempotency, reversibility via uncomplete_chore, or side effects.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's function, and the scoping qualifier 'specific occurrence of a recurring chore' earns its place.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient for confident invocation. The description omits how to identify the recurring chore via id/frameId, the conditional category_id semantics, and what a successful call returns.

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?

The schema covers 60% of parameters and includes useful conditional notes for category_id, instance_time, and instance_date, but id and frameId remain unexplained. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'specific occurrence,' leaving key identifiers ambiguous.

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 ('Mark...complete') and a precise resource ('a specific occurrence of a recurring chore'). The phrase 'specific occurrence' distinguishes it from sibling skylight_complete_chore without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 implies this tool is for recurring chore occurrences, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The agent must infer the boundary against skylight_complete_chore from the word 'recurring' and sibling names.

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