checkvist_invalidate_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the concrete effect (status=2) and clarifies it is not the same as closed, which is helpful. However, it omits details about reversibility, side effects, or permissions, leaving gaps for a mutation operation.

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 that delivers the essential purpose and a key distinction. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 tool is simple with two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action but does not explain when invalidated status is appropriate or how it relates to other status transitions, which is relevant given siblings like update_task and close_task.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both task_id and checklist_id. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies per the scoring rules.

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' with a clear resource 'task' and specifies the exact state change (status=2). It also explicitly distinguishes from 'closed', which differentiates it from the sibling tool checkvist_close_task.

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 phrase 'different from closed' hints at a key distinction from checkvist_close_task, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like checkvist_update_task or checkvist_reopen_task. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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