weeek_uncomplete_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description is minimal and doesn't explain behavioral traits such as whether it's a mutating operation (it clearly is), what happens if the task is already incomplete, error states, or side effects. 'Mark as not complete' is self-evident but lacks depth on edge behaviors.

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?

A single concise sentence that fully captures the action. There is zero wasted text, and the brevity is appropriate for a simple single-purpose tool.

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 mutating tool with one parameter and a clear purpose, the description is almost adequate. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, it falls slightly short—it might benefit from noting error conditions (e.g., task not found or already incomplete) or the reverse relationship to weeek_complete_task. Still, the minimal footprint makes this close to sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter (task_id, an integer). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description doesn't compensate with parameter details. However, with a single obvious integer parameter to identify the task, the schema itself is largely sufficient. The description adds no parameter semantics but the need is minimal.

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 'Mark a completed task as not complete' clearly states the verb (mark) and resource (completed task). It's the inverse of weeek_complete_task, which is evident from the sibling list. While it could be more specific about context, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly complements weeek_complete_task, but the description doesn't directly reference when one should be used over another, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., task must currently be completed for it to make sense).

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