reopen_forum_topic

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the topic is already open. Since the description essentially restates the tool name, it contributes minimal transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word is necessary to convey the core action, making it appropriately structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the complete schema, and annotations indicating idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits important usage context such as permissions and preconditions, which is a noticeable gap for a mutation tool.

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 100%, with both chat_id and message_thread_id fully described. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3. No additional semantic details are provided for the parameters.

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 'Reopen a closed topic' clearly states the action (reopen) and resource (a closed topic), making the purpose evident. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reopen_general_forum_topic', but the tool name provides that distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions such as the topic needing to be closed or required permissions, nor does it exclude scenarios where reopening is not applicable.

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