Take open steps off a task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: steps are removed only if un-ticked, the whole batch aborts if any step is ticked, and supplying `to` converts deletion into relaying the steps onto another task. It doesn't cover auth requirements, behavior on unmatched step text, or whether the operation is 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and only three sentences, each carrying a distinct rule. Some phrasing ('one the person opened to agents') is dense enough to slow parsing, but nothing is redundant.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, the abort condition, and the `to` variant. It leaves open what happens when a named step isn't found or what the caller gets back, which matters for an agent verifying the call.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what `to` actually does semantically (steps are handed on and appended after the target task's own steps rather than dropped), which the schema only hints at.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: taking un-ticked steps off a task, with the scope of which tasks qualify (ones you filed or that are opened to agents). An agent can tell this removes steps rather than completing them. It stops short of naming the close siblings it might be confused with (untick, plan, move).

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions ('a step that no longer applies, or one written twice') and an explicit exclusion ('One ticked step among them and nothing is taken off'), which tells the agent when this call will be a no-op. No alternative tool is named for the ticked-step or relocation case, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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