uncomplete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states the action, but does not mention behavior when the task is already incomplete, potential errors, permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible or idempotent.

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, front-loaded sentence (verb 'Mark' + object) with no filler or redundancy. It is an appropriately minimal expression for a simple state-transition 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?

The description is adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, but lacks edge-case context (e.g., what happens if the task isn't complete), expected return value, and any usage clarification. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, more detail would be expected for full completeness.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and clearly identifies the resource ('a completed task') and its new state ('incomplete'). It directly distinguishes itself from its sibling 'complete_task' by stating the opposite action.

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 does not provide any context for when to use this tool, nor does it mention alternative tools or prerequisites. It does not explicitly say 'use this when reverting a task completion' or contrast with 'complete_task'.

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