skylight_create_chore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the obvious mutation (creating a chore) that the tool name already implies. It does not disclose whether frameId is required, what happens when a chore is created without a start date, or how category_id maps to a family member.

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 zero-waste sentence with no fluff, which is structurally fine. However, it adds almost nothing beyond the tool name itself ('Create a chore' vs 'skylight_create_chore'), bordering on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

Given six parameters, two of which are required, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set including a recurring-chore variant, a single sentence is insufficient. An agent cannot determine key invocation details like whether frameId is needed, what the response contains, or what distinguishes a one-time chore from a recurring one.

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 description adds zero parameter-level information; the schema already does the work for 67% of parameters (summary, category_id, start, reward_points), including a helpful pointer to skylight_list_categories. However, frameId and description remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 ('create') and a named resource ('a chore on a Skylight frame'), so an agent can tell this performs a chore-creation action. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling skylight_create_recurring_chore, relying on the tool name alone to carry that differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as skylight_create_recurring_chore, skylight_update_chore, or skylight_complete_chore. The one-sentence description provides no context about prerequisites, such as whether a frame must already exist or how chores relate to categories/members.

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