complete_chore

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value (updated chore with timestamp) and optional user specification, but does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or error conditions (e.g., invalid chore_id). Adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

Two clear sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and includes optional details efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic functionality and return value. However, it omits error handling, non-idempotency note, or confirmation of success. Moderately complete for a simple mutation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'Optionally specify which user completed the chore' for 'completed_by', but does not elaborate on constraints or behavior beyond what schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mark a chore as complete.' It also specifies optional user input and return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'skip_chore' or 'update_chore'.

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 description implies when to use (when you want to mark a chore complete) but lacks explicit context about when not to use or alternatives (e.g., 'skip_chore' for skipping). No exclusions or usage guidance beyond the basic action.

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