When Prompts Go Wrong: Evaluating Code Model Robustness to Ambiguous, Contradictory, and Incomplete Task Descriptions

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in code generation tasks under idealized conditions, where task descriptions are clear and precise. However, in practice task descriptions frequently exhibit ambiguity, incompleteness, or internal contradictions. In this paper, we present the first empirical study examining the robustness of state of the art code generation models when faced with such unclear task descriptions. We extend the HumanEval and MBPP benchmarks by systematically introducing realistic task descriptions flaws through guided mutation strategies, producing a dataset that mirrors the messiness of informal developer instructions. We evaluate multiple LLMs of varying sizes and architectures, analyzing their functional correctness and failure modes across task descriptions categories. Our findings reveal that even minor imperfections in task description phrasing can cause significant performance degradation, with contradictory task descriptions resulting in numerous logical errors. Moreover, while larger models tend to be more resilient than smaller variants, they are not immune to the challenges posed by unclear requirements.

We further analyze semantic error patterns and identify correlations between description clarity, model behavior, and error types. Our results underscore the critical need for developing LLMs that are not only powerful but also robust to the imperfections inherent in natural user tasks, highlighting important considerations for improving model training strategies, designing more realistic evaluation benchmarks, and ensuring reliable deployment in practical software development environments.