uncomplete_todo

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. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Mark'), implying it changes state, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid todoId), or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for other gaps.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents 'todoId' as the 'Todo ID to mark as incomplete'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value.

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') and target resource ('a todo as incomplete'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'toggle_todo' tool, which might serve a similar function, nor does it specify whether this is the inverse of 'complete_todo'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toggle_todo' or 'complete_todo'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the todo must exist and be completed) or contextual constraints, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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