unresolve_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is irreversible, what permissions are required, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. The example only shows input variables, not outcomes or implications.

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 raw dump of variable names and a JSON example, with no concise summary, headings, or organization. The opening phrase 'Tasks · mutation unresolveTask' is redundant with the tool name, and the rest is a dense blob that is hard to parse without context. It does not earn its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description fails to explain the mutation's effect, the meaning of most parameters, or the expected return value. It is entirely inadequate for an agent to understand and correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are trivial ('GraphQL: String', 'GraphQL: Int'). The description's example reveals that 'input.taskId' is expected, but the purposes of 'after', 'filter', 'first', and 'order' remain unexplained, and their relevance to an unresolved task mutation is unclear. The example does not compensate for the lack of semantic meaning.

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 says 'Tasks · mutation unresolveTask', which merely restates the tool name without explaining what the mutation does. It does not use a verb to describe the action (e.g., 'unresolve a task') or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'resolve_task'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'resolve_task' or 'update_task_state'. The description only lists variables and an example, offering no context on appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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