skylight_create_recurring_chore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds 'verified live' but that phrase is vague and unexplained; it does not state whether creation is immediate, whether permissions are required, what side effects occur, or what the response contains.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and the core object. The parenthetical is useful, though 'verified live' is vague and slightly wasteful; overall it is appropriately compact.

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?

This is a 12-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides only a one-line purpose and no guidance on required inputs, optional modifiers, return behavior, or constraint interplay. The schema does some work, but the description is not complete enough for a tool this complex.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the tool description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond the RRULE hint. The description does not compensate for the four undocumented parameters (frameId, emoji_icon, description, reward_points) or clarify the relationship between category_ids and up_for_grabs.

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-resource pair: 'Create a recurring chore or routine,' and it adds recurrence semantics via 'repeats per an RRULE.' The word 'recurring' clearly separates this tool from the sibling skylight_create_chore without requiring the agent to inspect that tool.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'recurring' qualifier and RRULE mention: this is the tool for repeating chores/routines. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus create_chore, create_task, or create_event, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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