uncomplete_task

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the action 'marks as pending' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the task must already be completed or error handling. The description adds minimal value beyond 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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is largely complete. It adequately describes the action but could benefit from mentioning potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., task must be completed). For a straightforward state-change tool, it is nearly complete.

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 has 100% description coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Task UUID', so the description does not need to add further details. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 name 'uncomplete_task' and description 'Mark a completed task as pending again' clearly indicate a specific verb-resource action: reversing the completion status of a task. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'complete_task', 'snooze_task', and 'update_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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the name and context (inverse of complete_task), but no direct guidance or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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