Reject Chore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'reject a pending chore completion' without explaining consequences, reversibility, permissions, or resulting state; this is minimal mutation disclosure.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted content. The parenthetical adds a useful condition without bloating the text.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, reducing the need to describe return values. However, with no annotations and no mention of behavioral consequences, the description is not fully complete for an agent assessing safety and reversibility.

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 fully documents chore_id at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the pending-completion context, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('reject') and resource ('pending chore completion'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like approve_chore and complete_chore. The parenthetical '(requires approval)' adds helpful scope.

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 clearly states this applies to pending chore completions, giving the agent a conditional context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as approve_chore, but the pending-completion qualifier is enough for this simple workflow.

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