Update Chore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a mutation operation (implicit in 'update') and adds the partial-update behavior. However, it does not reveal other behavioral aspects like permission requirements, potential side effects, or how null values are treated (though the schema allows nulls). This is minimal but marginally adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the key usage guideline. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 involves 18 parameters and has an output schema, but the description is quite thin. It provides the essential partial-update rule, which is critical, but it lacks guidance on edge cases, relationships between fields, or how this tool relates to specialized update tools. Given the high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds a general meta-instruction about partial updates, which is useful for all parameters collectively, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate, and the meta-instruction doesn't elevate it further.

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 ('Update an existing chore') and the resource (chore), and the phrase 'with new values' implies a general update. However, it does not distinguish this tool from specialized siblings like update_chore_priority or update_chore_assignee, so it's not fully discriminative.

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 second sentence gives a clear usage rule: 'Only provide fields you want to change - other fields remain unchanged.' This is helpful but does not mention when to use this tool versus the more targeted update tools (e.g., update_chore_priority). No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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