Reopens a completed task, clearing its completion timestamp and completed-by user. Fails with a conflict if the task is not currently completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task's ID, as returned by create_task or list_tasks. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses specific behavioral traits beyond annotations: it modifies completion fields and fails with a conflict on non-completed tasks. Since annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, the description adds valuable context about side effects and error conditions, exceeding baseline expectations.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently captures the purpose, mechanism, and failure condition without unnecessarily repeating schema information.
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 (1 parameter), has an output schema, and annotations. The description covers the core behavior, the precondition (task must be completed), and the failure mode, making it fully complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.
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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter (id) with a clear description ('The task's ID, as returned by create_task or list_tasks'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter details, but none are needed given the schema's completeness.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Reopens') and resource ('completed task'), and explains exactly what it does (clearing completion timestamp and completed-by user). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the opposite of complete_task, with no ambiguity.
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 context: it is used on tasks that are currently completed, and it even specifies a failure condition if the task is not completed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like update_task or complete_task, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, keeping it just below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.
All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.
With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.
The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.
