Mark maintenance done

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects and state transitions: crediting to the task's usual provider, providerId=null meaning the household did it, the part being decremented from stock, repeating tasks rescheduling one interval after doneOn, one-off tasks being closed out, and reading-based rescheduling by usageEvery. It also states what is returned, which the annotations do not cover.

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 trigger, then side effects, then the use-based special case, then the return value — a logical order with no filler. It is a single dense block, though, and could be split for faster scanning of the reading/providerId branches.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the id source, provider crediting, stock consumption, rescheduling rules for both recurring and one-off tasks, the usage-based path, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: reading pairs with usageEvery to compute the next due date, providerId's null has a specific household semantic, and usePart's false case is motivated ('an old one was cleaned instead'). Most individual parameter phrasing still mirrors the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 ('Records that a task was done') plus the scope of what can be supplied (today or doneOn, note, cost). It is clearly distinguished from add_maintenance, delete_maintenance, and list_maintenance, the latter named explicitly as the source of the id.

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 a concrete trigger with a natural-language example ('whenever the person says they did one — "changed the furnace filter"') and routes the agent to list_maintenance for the id. It also carves out the use-based case via reading, but never distinguishes this tool from the sibling record_reading, which an agent could plausibly pick instead when a counter value is involved.

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