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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuine context beyond that by bounding the blast radius: it does not publish text and does not change document access, which disambiguates it from sibling tools like shareout_publish and shareout_revoke_link. It stops short of describing the resulting state or what happens on an already-open comment.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect disclaimers.

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 two-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the main ambiguity (it is not a publish or access-control action). It is slightly thin on the resulting state of the reopened comment, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 carries the burden but adds nothing about document_id or comment_id. The parameter names are self-explanatory and the schema supplies the id pattern constraints, so the tool remains callable, but no meaning beyond the schema is contributed.

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 and resource ('Reopen one resolved review comment') with a precise scope ('one'), and the antonym framing makes it distinguishable from the sibling shareout_resolve_comment. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

'Reopen one resolved review comment' implies the precondition (comment must already be resolved), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or permissions, and no named alternative to resolve_comment. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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