skylight_update_chore

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

The destructiveHint annotation signals that this is a destructive operation, and the description does not contradict that. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context: it does not mention that changes may be previewed until confirm is true, that recurrence edits can affect an entire series, or what the destructive consequences are. The description relies entirely on the annotation and schema.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It conveys no information beyond what the tool name already states, so the single sentence does not earn its place by adding value.

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 tool with 13 parameters, a required confirmation gate, a destructive annotation, recurrence semantics, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool without additional external knowledge about how updates apply to recurring chores, what confirm controls, and what inputs are valid.

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?

With only 31% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description should compensate by highlighting key parameters or update targets, but it says nothing. It does not even mention confirm, apply_to, recurrence, or id. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value for the many undocumented fields.

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 names a clear verb and resource: 'Update a chore.' However, it does not indicate what aspects of a chore can be updated, how this differs from sibling operations like skylight_complete_chore, skylight_uncomplete_chore, or skylight_update_task, or what effect the update has. It is minimally clear but largely generic.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skylight_create_chore, skylight_create_recurring_chore, skylight_complete_chore, or skylight_delete_chore. It does not mention that this edits existing chores, handles recurring occurrences, or requires confirmation before applying changes. The agent must infer all usage context from the schema.

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