Update Chore Assignee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action ('Reassign') which implies mutation, but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, permissions, validation, or what happens to the previous assignee. With no annotations to cover the safety profile, this is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, and every word contributes meaning. This is an example of ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 description is short but covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, it is not fully complete. The presence of an output schema helps, but the absence of behavioral details and usage recommendations leaves the agent to infer crucial context. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, this is minimally acceptable but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%—both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Reassign') and resource ('a chore') with a precise aspect ('to a different circle member'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_chore, which handles other fields, and other chore-specific tools. It is unambiguous about the tool's single responsibility.

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 the tool is used when the assignee needs to be changed, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like update_chore or state any exclusions (e.g., 'Use this only for changing assignee; for other updates, use update_chore'). Without such guidance, an agent may not know when to choose this tool over similar ones.

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