unmark_task

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

With no annotations, the description reveals an important side effect: completion notes will be removed. It clearly states the tool reverts a completed task, implying mutation. It does not cover permissions or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 concise (two sentences) with the primary purpose in the first sentence. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function, parameter usage, side effect, and scope (active checklist). It is complete for its complexity level.

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 already describes the 'task' parameter as an ID or name. The description repeats this information with an additional format hint ('#1'), adding minimal value. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action (revert), the resource (completed task), and the result (back to pending status) with the scope 'active checklist'. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like mark_task_done and unmark_tasks by focusing on singular unmarking and referencing completed status.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unmark_tasks for batch or mark_task_done for the reverse). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage partially ambiguous.

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