update_chore_assignee

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the return value ('Returns the updated chore') but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., notifications), permissions needed, or whether other fields are affected. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise with four short sentences, each providing distinct and necessary information: action, usage, prerequisite, and return. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisite for user_id, and return value. It does not mention error handling or validation, but this is acceptable for a straightforward update action.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying where to get user_id ('from list_circle_members or get_circle_members'), enhancing the schema's default explanation.

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 action ('Reassign a chore to a different circle member') and the resource (chore). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_chore' by specifying the exact purpose of changing assignee.

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 tells when to use the tool ('dynamically change who is responsible') and provides a prerequisite ('Get member IDs from list_circle_members or get_circle_members'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear.

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