Approve Chore

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'requires approval', hinting at a permission requirement, but does not disclose what happens after approval (e.g., state change, points awarded, irreversibility). The description is minimal and does not clarify whether approval can be undone or what the effect on the chore status is. This is a significant gap for a state-changing action.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Approve a pending chore completion') and includes a parenthetical clarifying requirement. There is no wasted content, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without being verbose.

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?

While the tool has a simple schema and an output schema, the description is very brief for an action that modifies state. Without annotations, the description should provide more context about the workflow, such as what constitutes a 'pending chore completion', whether approval is reversible, and what the expected outcome is. Sibling tools like 'reject_chore' and 'undo_chore' imply a complex state machine, and the description does not help the agent understand where this fits in that flow.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'chore_id', which is clearly described as 'The ID of the chore'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, but since the schema already fully covers the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify if the chore must be in a specific state (e.g., pending completion) for the approval to be valid, which could be useful, but schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: approving a pending chore completion. It uses a specific verb ('approve') and resource ('chore completion'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'reject_chore' or 'complete_chore'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'undo_chore' or 'archive_chore' which might also affect chore state, but the primary function is clear.

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 description implies usage in a workflow where a chore completion is pending and requires approval, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reject_chore' or when not to use it. It provides some context with '(requires approval)' but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like 'reject_chore' suggest a decision flow, but this is not stated.

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