grocy_chore_merge

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dry-run gate and the POST verb, but omits the important behavior for a destructive merge: whether execution history, assignments and intervals of the removed chore are transferred or discarded, and whether the merge is reversible.

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, no filler, with the action stated first and the dry-run affordance last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation explaining consequences, so the description is the only place to learn what a merge does to the surviving chore. It covers invocation but not outcome or reversibility, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive, open-world write.

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 only 33%, and the two integer IDs carry no schema descriptions. The endpoint template partially compensates by mapping keep/remove roles onto the parameter names, but it does not explain what "merge" means for either chore's data, so the semantics of the IDs remain underspecified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Merge two chores") and pins the REST endpoint, which clarifies that choreIdToKeep survives and choreIdToRemove does not. It does not name a sibling, though the only superficially similar one (grocy_stock_merge_products) is a different resource, so confusion risk is low.

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?

"Omit confirm for a dry-run" gives a concrete invocation pattern an agent can act on. However, it says nothing about when merging is appropriate versus deleting or renaming a chore, nor about what preconditions must hold (e.g. both chores exist, same assignment period).

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