Complete Chore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, or return values. It only states the action with no information about what happens after completion, whether the chore is deleted or archived, or if any confirmation or output is returned.

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 with no unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured and directly communicates the core action without clutter.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema), but the description does not explain what happens after completion, whether there are any side effects (e.g., auto-archive, point redemption), or what the tool returns. This leaves gaps for users understanding the full impact, especially given that sibling tools like 'approve_chore' and 'redeem_points' suggest a more complex workflow.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. 'chore_id' identifies the target chore, and 'completed_by' specifies the user (optional). The descriptions are sufficient for understanding the inputs, though they lack details about defaults or validation.

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 action ('Mark a chore as complete') with a clear verb and object. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its purpose from similar chore-related actions like 'approve_chore' or 'undo_chore', which could cause ambiguity in certain workflows.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as 'start_chore', 'approve_chore', or 'undo_chore'. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether it applies to individual or bulk chores, or if it should be used in specific sequences.

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