anon_post_work_modules_mid_unconfirm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by specifying exactly what state is destroyed (confirmedAt/confirmedBy) and that the project is inferred from the API key rather than passed in.

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 core action and the fields it clears are front-loaded in one line, followed by the reuse note and endpoint. It is tight and well-ordered, with only mild redundancy in restating the route.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what state changes, that permissions mirror confirm, and that the project comes from the key. The unaddressed mid path parameter is the only notable gap.

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 reported at 0% with two parameters, so the description carries weight. It usefully states no projectId is needed and that the body matches confirm, but the mid path parameter itself is never explained, leaving the parameter semantics only partially compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (取消任务确认 / unconfirm) and names the exact fields it clears (confirmedAt/confirmedBy), so the operation is unambiguous. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling confirm tool, though it never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

It tells the agent that the request body and permissions are identical to confirm, which helps route usage. However, it never says when to unconfirm versus when not to, nor points to confirm as the counter-operation by name, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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