basecamp_uncomplete_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden. It reveals a mutating action ('mark') but fails to disclose idempotency, permissions, or effects when the step is already incomplete. A simple state-change description without further detail is insufficient for full transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action and target clearly and compactly.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description provides the core action but lacks any information about return values, edge cases, or contextual usage. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this minimal description is average—it hints at functionality but leaves many operational details unknown.

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 0% and the description never mentions the parameters. It implies 'step_id' via the word 'step' but provides no explanation of 'project_id' or the relationship between the two parameters, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.

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') and resource ('step') with a clear state change ('incomplete'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling 'basecamp_complete_step' by naming the opposite operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its counterpart or when an action is appropriate (e.g., for reverting a completion). The description implies a state-changing operation but offers no context, preconditions, or alternatives.

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