uncomplete-tasks

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

Annotations already convey the mutation safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the semantic effect of reopening completed tasks. It does not disclose edge cases like behavior for already-uncompleted tasks or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 where every word adds value: 'Uncomplete (reopen)' clarifies terminology, 'one or more' maps to the array type, 'completed tasks' defines the target set, and 'by their IDs' specifies the input. There is no wasted 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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly communicates the action, target, and input, and nothing important is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 for the single required parameter is 100% with a clear description for 'ids'. The tool description only reiterates 'by their IDs' and adds no new format, type, or behavior details beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Uncomplete (reopen)' and clearly identifies the resource ('completed tasks') and the input mechanism ('by their IDs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete-tasks and update-tasks by specifying both the action and the target state.

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 gives implied usage context: it is for completed tasks that need to be reopened, and IDs are required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using complete-tasks for the inverse operation.

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