skylight_uncomplete_chore

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'reopen' is consistent with a non-destructive state mutation. It adds the whole-chore vs. single-occurrence distinction, but says nothing about side effects (streaks, points, notifications), permissions, or whether the chore must already be in a completed state.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the optional occurrence-scoping detail in a compact parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the happy path and the recurring-occurrence case, which the annotations partially support. It still leaves gaps on failure conditions (chore not completed), permission requirements, and the undocumented id/frameId parameters.

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 coverage is 50%: instance_date and instance_time are documented in the schema, while id and frameId are not. The description reinforces instance_date's purpose ('instead of the whole chore') but omits instance_time entirely and says nothing about frameId's role, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific inverse verb (reopen/un-complete) and resource (chore), and the parenthetical clarifies it can target either the whole chore or a single recurring occurrence. It implicitly contrasts with skylight_complete_chore, but never names a sibling or scoping boundary explicitly.

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?

Gives one concrete usage condition — pass instance_date when you want to reopen only one occurrence of a recurring chore — which is genuinely useful routing information. However, there is no when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if the chore isn't currently complete), no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling complete_chore_instance.

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