uncross_item

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Mark an item as active again' clearly implies it reverses a 'cross_off' action, but it omits details about preconditions (must be crossed off), side effects, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and clear siblings, the description is adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'active' means and what the response looks like. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisite states.

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 parameters (itemId and listId). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 an item as active again.' This conveys a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from its opposite 'cross_off_item' and references 'add_item' as an alternative in certain conditions, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'remove_item'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over add_item when resolve_item_to_add recommends it.' This tells the agent when to use this tool over a specific alternative. However, it does not cover when not to use it or other alternatives.

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