reopen_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only says 'one write', implying batch atomicity, but does not disclose concurrency requirements, side effects on iteration state, whether the operation is reversible, or failure behavior. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the addressing guidance is compact and immediately useful.

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?

Tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits important context like required version usage, the expect guard, plan_path behavior, and what happens on refusal or mismatch. Given the 8-parameter complexity, the description is too thin to be complete.

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 coverage is high at 88%, and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the singular/plural addressing convention: exactly one can use index or task, while several use indexes or tasks. This integration is not fully stated in the schema.

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 the action precisely: 'Untick one or many tasks in one write.' This clearly identifies the resource (tasks) and the operation (unticking), and distinguishes it from siblings like complete_task without needing to open the schema.

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 concrete guidance on addressing modes: for several tasks use 'indexes or tasks', for exactly one use 'index or task'. This helps the agent choose among the many parameters. It does not explicitly name alternatives like complete_task, but the semantic contrast is strong enough that the usage context is clear.

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