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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important auth constraint ('org admin only') plus the state mutation. However, it omits other behavioral traits: whether the reopen is reversible, side effects on run events, or whether in-flight work is resumed. Adds real value but leaves gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and eligibility states first, and the permission note parenthetically. Zero waste, nothing to trim.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the state transition and permission requirement. The main residual gap is that a mutation tool with no annotations could say more about reversibility and event side effects.

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 run_id, reason, and agent are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., format of run_id or how reason is surfaced), so 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 ('Return ... to active') and resource ('Process run'), and enumerates the source states (failed, cancelled, completed) it operates on. This cleanly distinguishes it from process_run_fail, process_run_complete, and process_run_advance without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives clear eligibility context: it applies to runs in failed, cancelled, or completed states, and flags that it is org-admin only. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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