delete_chore

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds real value: it states the removal is permanent and warns that recurring chores may only lose one instance. That recurring-instance caveat is a genuine behavioral nuance not expressible in the annotations. It omits error behavior on an invalid/unknown choreId.

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 purpose sentence, scannable when-to-use bullets, parameter line, and a trailing note carrying the only real risk. Every section earns its place; the parameter line slightly duplicates the schema but aids scanning.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger cases, identifier sourcing, permanence, and the recurring-chore edge case. Only failure behavior (invalid ID, not found, permission errors) is left unaddressed.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by telling the agent where the ID comes from (get_chores), which is practical sourcing information absent from the schema.

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 ("Delete a chore from Skylight") and names the sibling get_chores as the source of the identifier, which helps distinguish it from create_chore/update_chore. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with update_chore, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

A dedicated "Use this when" block gives two concrete situations (stale chore, mistakenly added chore), which is more than most definitions offer. It does not include a when-not case or point to update_chore as the non-destructive alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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