grocy_chores_calculate_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds that this is a POST write with a dry-run mode. But that dry-run nuance is already spelled out fully in the confirm parameter's schema description, so the description contributes little beyond the endpoint string. It never says what existing assignments are overwritten or that unchanged calls may still reshuffle state.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The dry-run sentence duplicates schema text rather than adding new information, which is the only wasted line.

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 mutating, non-idempotent recalculation with two parameters and no output schema, the definition leaves key questions unanswered: what chore_id scopes, what the dry-run preview returns, and what assignment state is replaced. Annotations cover safety but not the operational picture.

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 50%: confirm is thoroughly documented in the schema, but chore_id has no description anywhere. The tool description never mentions chore_id, so an agent cannot tell whether omitting it scopes the recalculation to all chores or to none — the exact gap the description should have filled.

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 ('Recalculate next chore user assignments'), which an agent can clearly distinguish from siblings like grocy_chore_execute or grocy_chore_undo_execution. It does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 one concrete usage instruction for the write path, so the calling pattern is implied. However, it never says when this recalc is appropriate (e.g., after chore changes) versus just executing a chore, so the alternative routing is left to inference.

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