grocy_chore_execute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly known. The description adds meaningful value by disclosing the dry-run mechanism via omitting confirm, which is important behavioral context for a write tool that is not marked destructive.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste, and the dry-run safety note is placed prominently enough to influence invocation. The definition is appropriately sized for the amount of information provided.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the dry-run behavior but omits the meaning of done_by, skipped, and tracked_time. The core execution path is clear, but an agent would need to infer parameter intent from names alone.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions only confirm (which the schema already documents) and leaves done_by, skipped, and tracked_time with no semantic explanation, and only implicitly identifies chore_id through the endpoint path.

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 states a specific action ('Track a chore execution') plus the backing endpoint, which lets an agent separate it from read-oriented siblings like grocy_chores_list and grocy_chore_get. 'Track' is slightly softer than 'execute/record', but the endpoint and dry-run note remove ambiguity.

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 dry-run guidance ('Omit confirm for a dry-run') gives useful operational context for the confirm flag. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grocy_chore_undo_execution or grocy_chores_list, leaving usage largely implied.

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