uncomplete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key side effect (clears completed_at), but it does not say whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the task is not completed, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It efficiently states the action and its primary effect.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core operation and side effect. Completeness is reduced by the missing parameter semantics and the lack of any explanation of error conditions or return behavior, especially with no annotations or output schema to fill those 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?

The schema has one required parameter, task_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention task_id or explain its meaning, though the overall operation context implies it identifies the task to uncomplete.

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 operation: undoing a completion and clearing completed_at. It is clearly the inverse of complete_task, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or otherwise differentiate beyond the implicit inverse action.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase "Undo a completion": use it when a task should become incomplete again. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives beyond the obvious sibling complete_task.

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