Uncheck a checklist item in a note, matched by text (case-insensitive, whole-item match, not substring). Fails with an error if no item matches — call get_note first if you're not sure of the exact wording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note ID | |
| item | Yes | Text of the item to uncheck (case-insensitive, must match a full item, not a fragment) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses matching semantics, error on no match, and a prerequisite. However, it does not specify behavior for multiple matches or idempotency when the item is already unchecked.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no wasted words. Every phrase adds meaning.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, matching behavior, error case, and a fallback. Minor gaps about multiple matches and return value keep it from a 5.
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% for both parameters, and the description repeats the item-matching details already in the schema. No additional parameter insight is provided beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the verb 'Uncheck' and the resource 'a checklist item in a note', with explicit matching rules (case-insensitive, whole-item match). This fully differentiates it from siblings like check_item or add_checklist_item.
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 provides concrete guidance by advising to call get_note first if unsure of exact wording, and notes the error condition. It does not explicitly contrast with check_item, but the usage context is clear enough.
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 or action: note CRUD, checklist operations, label management, changelog entries, settings, and task queries. Descriptions explicitly differentiate between append vs. update, list vs. get, check vs. uncheck, and add vs. remove, so there is no ambiguity.
All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_label, get_note, check_item, update_note), with consistent verb choices. Even 'get_my_tasks' and 'uncheck_item' fit the pattern, so the naming is predictable and uniform.
14 tools is well-scoped for a notes application with checklist, label, and changelog features. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set covers full CRUD for notes, plus checklist management (add, check, uncheck), label management (add/remove), changelog entries, settings retrieval, and task aggregation. Minor gaps like archive/unarchive and a dedicated label list are workable, so the surface is near-complete for the domain.