update_chore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and notably idempotentHint=false, yet the description does not explain the non-idempotent behavior or address partial-update semantics (do omitted fields stay unchanged?). It does add the provenance hint "choreId (from get_chores)" and a Returns line, which is modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then usage scenarios, then parameters, then return value. The parameter section largely duplicates the schema, but the structure is clean and the total length stays reasonable for a 7-parameter mutation.

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 supplies a Returns line and derives choreId from get_chores, and annotations cover the safety profile. The gaps are the undocumented rewardPoints parameter and the unstated semantics of omitting optional fields during an update.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The Parameters list mostly restates the schema descriptions verbatim, and it omits rewardPoints entirely, so no meaning is added beyond structured data.

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?

"Update an existing chore in Skylight" is a specific verb+resource statement that cleanly separates it from create_chore and delete_chore without naming them. It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast, so it lands just below the top mark.

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 "Use this when" block gives three concrete scenarios with example utterances (complete, reassign, change details), which is unusually actionable. It never states exclusions or points to alternatives, so an agent must infer that new chores go to create_chore.

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