Uncomplete task

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The schema's idempotency disclosure—'a task that is already incomplete succeeds and reports no change'—adds valuable behavioral transparency beyond the annotations. It could go further by describing side effects or return value, but for a simple state-change tool this is solid.

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?

One sentence, zero wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The idempotency detail is appropriately placed in the schema, keeping the main description compact and scannable.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states the action and the schema defines the parameter. It does not discuss edge cases like task subtasks or notifications, but for this tool's simplicity that is a minor gap.

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 100%, and the description of task_id provides meaningful semantics beyond the name: 'The ID of the completed task to mark incomplete' and the idempotency behavior. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, the description doesn't need to add much, but what it adds is useful.

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 'Mark a completed task as incomplete again' clearly states the specific action and resource: un-completing a task. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'complete_task' through the verb and meaning, though it does not explicitly name the sibling. It is clear and specific, but could be even stronger with explicit differentiation.

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 the use case: when a task was previously completed and needs to be reverted. The idempotency note in the schema adds context about behavior for already-incomplete tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.

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