update_chore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the tool mutates data and preserves untracked fields, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, error handling, or outcomes when the chore does not exist. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool with many parameters.

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?

The description is just two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a concise usage note. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool has 18 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is somewhat brief. It covers the basic idea of partial updates, but does not explain return values, validation rules, or error scenarios. Lacks completeness for a complex tool.

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 description's contribution is limited. It lists example properties (name, description, schedule, etc.) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The partial update guideline is more about usage than parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Update an existing chore with new values.' It specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'chore,' and distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_chore or delete_chore by focusing on modification.

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 advises partial updates ('Only provide fields you want to change'), which is helpful, but it does not guide when to use this tool versus more specific update tools like update_chore_assignee or update_chore_priority. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given.

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