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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that 'reopen' means 'unarchive' and provides the exact REST method and path. It does not elaborate on any destructive side effects, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals potential impact, so the description adds useful details without contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence followed by the REST endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the scope ('in the planner'), and the API call. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description covers the only parameter fully ('The task id to mark incomplete'). The description itself does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but no additional explanation is necessary given the simple, well-documented parameter.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Reopen a completed task (unarchive)'. It names the resource ('task'), the context ('in the planner'), and provides the REST endpoint. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like reclaim_mark_task_complete.

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 clear context: it is for reopening completed tasks (unarchiving), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the opposite sibling (reclaim_mark_task_complete) is obvious from the name.

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