workflowy_uncomplete_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Mark as not completed' implies a state mutation, it doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, what happens if the node doesn't exist or isn't completed, whether the change is reversible, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a state mutation tool with no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about what 'marking as not completed' entails in the WorkFlowy system and any constraints.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no information about the 'node_id' parameter - what format it should be, where to find it, or what constitutes a valid ID. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name, leaving the single required parameter completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Mark as not completed') and resource ('a WorkFlowy node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'workflowy_complete_node' by specifying the opposite state change. However, it doesn't specify what 'not completed' means in the WorkFlowy context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage when a previously completed node needs to be marked incomplete, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about prerequisites (e.g., the node must exist and be currently marked as completed) or when not to use it. The existence of 'workflowy_complete_node' as a sibling suggests a clear alternative, but this isn't mentioned in the description.

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