uncomplete_task

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the completion flag is cleared, but says nothing about side effects (e.g., subtasks, timestamps) or what happens if the task is not currently completed — reasonable but thin for a mutation.

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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and a clarifying parenthetical; no wasted words. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but structurally clean.

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 3 parameters (0 required), no output schema, and multiple selection paths (list/title/taskId), the description omits behavior when nothing matches, when multiple tasks match by partial title, and the relationship to complete_task. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so list/title/taskId semantics (including partial-match and taskId precedence) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource: undoing a task's completed status ('取消任务的完成状态'). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling complete_task, so the agent can distinguish the two, though it never names that sibling directly.

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 statement of when to use this versus complete_task or update_task, nor any prerequisite such as the task needing to currently be completed. Usage is only implied by the name and the parenthetical '取消勾选'.

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