Create Chore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create a new chore' without detailing potential side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a mutation operation, especially since no prerequissite or auth information is given.

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 short sentence with no extraneous words, which is appropriately concise for this simple create operation. However, it could include a bit more context (e.g., typical usage or required fields) without becoming verbose, so it loses one point for being somewhat underspecified.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (all optional except name) and an output schema exists, the description should provide at least some context about the creation process or prerequisites. It does not mention required fields, possible duplicate handling, or the fact that the name is mandatory. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks overall completeness for a create operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the tool earns the baseline without needing compensation from the description.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new chore in Donetick', which specifically differentiates it from sibling tools like update_chore, delete_chore, etc. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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 for creating a new chore, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like update_chore or create_project. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent's inference from the tool name.

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