create_chore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotence, so the write semantics are covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the chore becomes visible on the shared Skylight display — but says nothing about return values, failure behavior, or whether recurrence requires a matching recurrencePattern.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then bulleted scenarios — the structure is easy to scan. It loses a point because the bullet example "empty the dishwasher" duplicates the example already given in the summary parameter's schema description, so the bullet list adds length without adding information.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a write operation, the description covers purpose and side effect but leaves gaps: no return value expectation, no coupling rules between recurring and recurrencePattern, and no guidance on the chore-vs-task choice. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to invoke confidently in a crowded sibling set.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with examples and defaults in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description gestures at assignee and recurring usage in its bullets but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail (e.g. that recurrencePattern is meaningless without recurring=true).

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 verb and resource: "Add a new chore to Skylight." That clearly separates it from read tools like get_chores and mutation tools like update_chore/delete_chore. However, it never distinguishes a chore from a task or calendar event, and in fact calls the example "a new task," which blurs the boundary with the sibling create_task.

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 three bullets give concrete usage scenarios (new task, assigning to family members, recurring chores), which is more than most definitions offer. But there are no exclusions and no explicit routing to alternatives — an agent cannot tell from this description why it should call create_chore instead of create_task for "empty the dishwasher."

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