reopen_contradiction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the resulting status and that audit trail logging occurs, but omits whether reopening is reversible, what permissions or actor identity are required, and how existing resolution metadata is handled.

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 no filler; the state transition and audit logging are both stated economically and every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, target states, and audit behavior. It stops short of the authorization/prerequisite detail an agent might want before mutating a record, but the essentials are present.

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 all four parameters (contradictionId, reopenedBy, reason, notes) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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 (reopens), resource (contradiction), and the exact state transition (resolved/dismissed -> OPEN), plus a side effect (audit trail logging). This distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_contradiction, dismiss_contradiction, and review_contradiction, which move records into the states this tool reverses.

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 phrase 'previously resolved or dismissed' implies the precondition for use, so an agent can infer this applies only to non-open records. However, it never explicitly contrasts with resolve_contradiction/dismiss_contradiction or states when-not to use it (e.g., already-open records), leaving routing to inference.

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