create_chore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well by revealing that the chore appears on the Skylight display and that the assignee is mandatory due to an API-version limitation. It adds nuanced context about a real-world constraint ('unassigned chores are rejected outright') that an agent must know. Minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens on success, error handling, or idempotency, but it's still substantially transparent.

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 structure is exemplary: a one-sentence summary, a short bulleted list for when to use, and a final paragraph explaining an important edge case. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the format is scannable. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key usage scenarios and adds behavioral context (display, assignee constraint). It could be more thorough by mentioning default values, response behavior, or failure modes, but given the schema richness, it's sufficiently complete. The missing pieces are nice-to-have, not critical.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the rationale behind 'assignee' (required and why) and implying the 'recurring' parameter, but it doesn't elaborate on the other parameters beyond the schema. It meets the baseline but doesn't elevate it.

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 opens with "Add a new chore to Skylight," a specific verb+resource that clearly defines the operation. The bulleted use cases (e.g., 'Add a new task like "empty the dishwasher"', 'Assign chores to family members', 'Create recurring chores') further disambiguate it from siblings like create_task and update_chore, which could otherwise be confused.

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 explicit 'Use this when the user wants to:' section lists clear contexts for using the tool, such as adding tasks, assigning chores, and creating recurring chores. However, it stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., 'use update_chore for edits' or 'use create_task for...'), so it misses the full 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would earn a 5.

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