grocy_chore_undo_execution

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not convey: the tool defaults to a dry-run unless confirm is supplied. It says nothing about what state is actually restored by an undo (stock, chore due date, assignment history), which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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, action first, endpoint second, the one non-obvious parameter behavior last. Nothing is wasted and the dry-run caveat is not buried.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the essentials are present but thin. Missing: how to obtain an execution_id, what the undo actually reverts, and what a dry-run preview returns, all of which an agent needs to call this confidently.

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 50%: confirm is fully documented in the schema, and execution_id has no description anywhere. The description's dry-run note largely repeats what the confirm schema description already says, and adds nothing about execution_id (where to obtain it, what it identifies).

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 ("Undo a chore execution") plus the exact endpoint, which cleanly separates it from grocy_chore_execute and grocy_chore_get in the sibling list. Sibling differentiation comes from the verb alone rather than explicit contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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 instruction ("Omit confirm for a dry-run") gives real invocation guidance for the confirm parameter. There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus related siblings such as grocy_task_undo or grocy_chore_merge, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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