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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds the crucial specifics: which fields are permanently erased (decision, approved draft, cancel reason) and which survive (result and results). That is exactly the state-mutation detail an agent needs before calling a destructive tool and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary state transition is front-loaded and the exceptional branch and data-loss consequences follow in a compact subordinate clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given the tool exposes only two parameters, the description covers everything an agent must know: eligibility, resulting state, the exception, and what data is destroyed versus retained.

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%, so both `id` and `why` are already documented in the schema, including the workspace-items requirement and the 300-character limit. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (reopen) and resource (task) plus the eligible source states (done or cancelled). It also spells out the destination state and the one exception case (skipped proposal returns to In review to its reviewer), so it is distinguishable from task_complete, task_cancel, and task_decide without opening any schema.

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 precondition is explicit — only done or cancelled tasks qualify — and the exception path is described precisely. It does not name sibling tools (task_complete, task_cancel) as alternatives or state what to do if the task is in another state, so it falls short of a 5.

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