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

Annotations already establish that the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it acts only on confirmed classifications, requires one of four valid triggers, and explicitly rejects ordinary disagreement as a reason. This goes beyond what the annotations or schema alone communicate.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, the allowed triggers are enumerated compactly, and the exclusion rule is stated in one clear sentence.

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?

The description is strong for deciding when to call the tool but weak for actually invoking it correctly. With five parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on what evidence should contain, what user_approved means, and what happens after reopening.

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%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only indirectly maps trigger values to the allowed reasons. It does not clarify the meaning or expected shape of reason, evidence, or user_approved, leaving several required parameters underspecified.

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 names a specific verb ('Reopen') and resource ('confirmed/locked subject classification'), and narrows the operation to four explicit trigger categories. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like propose_subject_reclassification or affirm_subject_classification by focusing on an already-confirmed state.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use criteria ('only for a user correction, contradictory new evidence, a retired type, or vocabulary invalidation') and a strong when-not-to-use rule ('Ordinary later disagreement never reopens it'). It does not name sibling alternatives, so the guidance is slightly incomplete on routing, but the inclusion and exclusion conditions are very clear.

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