uncomplete note

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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and possible side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the specific state transition (completed to incomplete) but does not disclose edge cases like what happens if the note is already incomplete or if the note does not exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence (8 words) that states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is perfectly sized for this simple operation.

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?

The operation is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description tells what it does but omits behavior for edge cases (e.g., already-incomplete note, invalid note_id) and does not mention any side effects despite openWorldHint=true. It is minimally adequate but lacks deeper context.

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 0% for the single parameter note_id. The description does not explicitly explain that note_id identifies the note to uncomplete, though the parameter name is self-explanatory. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: reverting a completed note to its incomplete state. It uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource (a completed Note). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'complete_note', which does the opposite.

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 context—when you want to revert a note's completion status—but it does not explicitly mention the alternative 'complete_note' or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not formally stated.

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