ticktick_uncomplete_task

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it reopens completed tasks, which implies a state change not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Reopen a completed task') and adds a clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 a mutation tool with annotations covering safety (idempotent, non-destructive), an output schema exists (not detailed here), and schema documenting parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, errors, or output, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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 0%, but the input schema's properties have descriptions: 'task_id' and 'project_id' are documented there. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying a task ID is needed. With schema doing the work, baseline 3 is appropriate, though the description could have clarified parameter roles.

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 ('Reopen') and resource ('a completed task'), with additional clarification ('mark as incomplete'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_complete_task' by indicating the opposite action. However, it doesn't specify the exact effect on task status or mention the sibling tool by name, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must be completed), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'ticktick_update_task' for status changes. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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