Reopen a task

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the exact state change (needsAction, cleared timestamp), hidden-task behavior, deletion permanence, and that the updated task is returned. These details meaningfully exceed annotation coverage, and there is no contradiction with destructiveHint or idempotentHint.

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?

Three concise sentences each add distinct value: the core behavior, the hidden-task edge case, and the deletion limitation. The most important action is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral details an agent needs: what changes, what edge cases exist, what the tool cannot do, and what it returns. Annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, including where to get them, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action with a clear verb and resource: 'Reverts a completed task to needsAction and clears its completed timestamp.' It also explicitly calls itself 'the undo for complete_task', making its relationship to sibling tools unambiguous.

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?

It names the inverse tool, complete_task, and the related clear_completed_tasks flow. It also provides a when-not case: 'Cannot resurrect a deleted task — deletion is permanent.' This is explicit guidance on when to use the tool and what its limits are.

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